The agency upwardly adjusted the awardee’s costs. The protester argued this adjustment reflected a lack of understanding and should’ve resulted in a weakness. GAO found the adjustment non-problematic. Some of the awardee’s labor rates were low, but those low rates did not reflect performance risk.
Mitchell Vantage Systems, LLC, GAO B-421548.2, B-421548.3
- Upward Adjustment – The agency upwardly adjusted the awardee’s proposed costs. The protester argued this adjustment demonstrated the awardee had a defective understanding of the requirements. Thus, the protester contended, the awardee should have received a weakness under the mission sustainability factor. GAO didn’t agree. The adjustment was less than five percent of the awardee’s costs. The agency adjusted because the awardee’s proposed labor rates were less than incumbent rates for some positions. The rates presented a risk of cost overruns, but GAO did not think the increase represented performance risk or warranted an additional weakness.
- Disparate Evaluation – The protester contended the agency disparately evaluated phase-in plans. The agency assigned a strength to the awardee’s plan. The protester alleged its plan offered the same benefits but didn’t receive a similar strength. GAO found the plans were not similar. The protester’s plan lacked the features of the awardee’s plan.
- Past Performance – The protester objected to the past performance evaluation. The protester argued the awardee should not have received a high confidence rating based on the ratings assessed to its references. Moreover, the protester complained the agency had assigned too much weight to past contracts performed by the awardee’s subcontractors. GAO found the protester’s arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the relative weight the agency assessed to the references.
- Identity of Subcontractor – The awardee submitted two past performance references from the same subcontractor. The protester complained the awardee’s proposal had not accurately identified this subcontractor as a significant subcontractor. But GAO noted this argument was premised on inconsistent references to the subcontractor in the awardee’s proposal. Nevertheless, through CAGE codes, the agency properly identified the subcontractor. The agency understood the references referred to the same significant subcontractor.
The protester is represented by Gregory S. Jacobs, Erin L. Felix, and Daniel H. Petkoff of Polsinelli PC. The awardee is represented by Richard B. Oliver, J. Matthew Carter, and Dinesh C. Dharmadasa of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The agency is represented by Jennifer L. Howard and Maria R. Harrington of NASA. GAO attorneys Michelle Litteken and Christina Sklarew participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
