Post-award protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied. Contrary to the protester’s contentions, the agency was not required to make a qualitative performance assessment in evaluating the awardee’s corporate experience. The agency did not err in failing to assign a risk for low compensation rates because the solicitation contemplated a fixed-price contract and specifically stated that price realism would not be evaluated. Additionally, the agency did not err in evaluating the awardee’s staffing approach and did not engage in disparate treatment.
Ausley Associates, Inc. protested the Army’s award of a contract to support aircraft intelligence and surveillance to CACI, Inc.-Federal. Ausley and CACI had the same technical ratings, but Ausley had a higher price. Ausley alleged that the Army misevaluated various aspects of CACI’s proposal.
Ausley contended that the Army’s evaluation of CACI under the corporate experience factor was flawed. The Army evaluated corporate experience as either acceptable or unacceptable. Ausley argued that the Army should have found CACI unacceptable. CACI had performed the requirements the Army was soliciting from 2014 to 2016. According to Ausley, however, CACI’s performance of that contract was deficient.
GAO rejected this argument because it imposed a requirement that the Army perform a qualitative assessment of CACI’s corporate experience even though such an assessment was not required by the solicitation. Corporate experience is distinct from past performance. Corporate experience focuses on whether the offeror has performed similar work. Past performance concerns the quality of that work. The Army rightly declined to turn a corporate experience assessment into a past performance evaluation.
Next, Ausley claimed that CACI’s proposed compensation for its pilots was so low that it introduced an element of risk in CACI’s ability to recruit and retain pilots. The Army, Ausley argued, should have assigned a risk to CACI’s proposal. But GAO found this argument was really just a price realism argument in disguise. The solicitation was a for a fixed-price contract, and it specifically stated that the agency would not perform a price realism evaluation. Even if CACI’s compensation was too low, it did not provide a basis for GAO to object to the Army’s evaluation.
Ausley argued that the Army’s evaluation of CACI’s staffing approach was improper because CACI did not currently employ 84 pilots as required by the solicitation. GAO was not persuaded. While CACI only employed eight pilots, its proposal included letters of intent from an additional 52 pilots. What’s more, CACI stated in its proposal that it intended to recruit 75 percent of the incumbent pilot staff. CACI therefore represented that it would have the 84 pilots needed before the end of the contract transition period.
Still, Ausley asserted, even if CACI could provide the pilots by the transition period. Ausley already had 84 pilots on staff, and the Army should have recognized this benefit in Ausley’s proposal. GAO found that the Army actually recognized the difference between CACI’s and Ausley’s staffing approaches, and that it found Ausley’s approach superior. Nevertheless, Ausley’s slight superiority on staffing did not warrant its higher price.
Finally, Ausley argued that the Army had engaged is disparate treatment with respect to surge staffing—that is, situations where it may be necessary to have more pilots than required by the contract. The Army had criticized Ausley for using a subcontractor without explaining how the subcontractor’s pilots would be paid. Ausley contended that CACI had proposed a third-party vendor for surge requirements, and it had not explained how those pilots would be paid.
GAO did not find this problematic. CACI proposed to use an existing corporate-wide vendor agreement for the surge requirements. Ausley proposed a subcontractor. The concerns the Army had with Ausley’s subcontractor were not pertinent to CACI’s vendor agreement. The Army did not engage in disparate treatment.
Ausley is represented by Paul F. Khoury, Moshe B. Broder, and Lindy C. Bathurst of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor, CACI, is represented by Sharon L. Larkin and James M. Larkin of The Larkin Law Group LLP. The government is represented by Patrick G. Nelson, Rachel S. Sanders, Christopher C. Schwan and Debra J. Talley of the U.S. Army. GAO attorneys Scott H. Riback and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
