Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ staffing and retention approaches is sustained, where the agency assessed a weakness to the protester’s quotation for failing to propose retention techniques designed specifically for cleared personnel but did not assess a weakness to the awardee’s proposal for the same fault. Because the weakness was a determining factor in the source selection decision, GAO found the protester was prejudiced by the agency’s unequal evaluation.
ManTech Advanced Systems International Inc. protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s issuance of a blanket purchase agreement for operations support services to SRA International Inc., challenging the evaluation of proposals.
First, ManTech argued that ICE unreasonably evaluated its quotation as having two weaknesses under the staffing approach factor. ManTech also asserted that the agency unequally evaluated its and the awardee’s quotations under that factor.
ManTech’s quotation was rated as overall acceptable under the staffing approach factor, but the agency noted two weaknesses. The agency noted that ManTech did not provide any retention techniques focused on cleared personnel, and that ManTech’s retention plan for junior analysts would result in CTCEU having fewer experienced analysts.
ManTech argued the first weakness was unreasonable because it discussed retention techniques applicable to cleared personnel in its quotation when summarizing its general retention incentives. However, GAO found that the quotation did not address any specific retention techniques focused on cleared personnel. The quotation shows that ManTech planned to use general, company-wide retention strategies which did not appear to be designed specifically for retaining cleared personnel but rather apply to both cleared and junior personnel, as well as all other ManTech employees. Further, the quotation did not state that these techniques were designed solely to retain cleared personnel or had some other particular benefit, and the agency was not required to infer that these techniques satisfied the evaluation criterion. Regarding the second weakness, GAO found the agency reasonably interpreted ManTech’s retention techniques as potentially leading to a dearth of qualified analysts.
Next, ManTech argued that the agency unequally evaluated vendors’ quotations because SRA’s quotation suffered the same defects but was not assigned identical weaknesses. Specifically, ManTech argued that SRA’s quotation did not include retention techniques focused on cleared personnel yet was not assigned a weakness. In response, the agency asserted that SRA’s quotation included multiple retention incentives specifically geared towards cleared personnel and two retention incentives of general applicability that apply to cleared personnel.
However, GAO agreed with the protester, finding that both quotations lack retention techniques focused on cleared personnel. Nearly identical to ManTech’s quotation, SRA’s quotation proposed to use a competitive salary structure, spot bonuses, continuing education opportunities, training and development programs, and a team-friendly environment as its tools to retain cleared personnel. Thus, both vendors proposed to use what appear to be company-wide benefits as their retention techniques for cleared personnel. Given that neither vendor proposed a retention technique specifically focused on cleared personnel, GAO found the agency evaluated proposals disparately in this area.
ManTech also challenged the source selection decision, arguing that without the error in the evaluation, the two quotations would have been considered essentially equal in the technical factors. Therefore, ManTech argued that its lower-priced quotation would have been selected for award.
The solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate the corporate experience and key personnel factors on a pass or fail basis, and then conduct a tradeoff between the price and staffing approach factors. If two or more quotes were found not to have any substantial differences with respect to the non-price factors, price would be considered more important. The solicitation stated that award could be made to a higher-priced quotation if the agency concluded the proposal was in its best interest.
GAO found that when the agency conducted its tradeoff between ManTech an SRA, it did not identify any substantial differences between the vendors’ staffing approaches. As ManTech argued, this means it should have received award because it was lower-priced. GAO found this interpretation unreasonable, because the RFQ never identified price as the determinative factor under any scenario, including where quotations were evaluated as not having substantial differences. Instead, the RFQ repeatedly described price as becoming more important than the staffing approach factor in those circumstances, and explained that the agency may award to a higher-priced quotation where the quotations have substantial differences. While the solicitation stated price would “become more important,” GAO found this did not mean that price would become “more determinative.”
However, GAO found that ManTech was prejudiced by the error in the evaluation. When making its tradeoff decision, the agency distinguished between the protester’s and awardee’s quotations based on the two weaknesses identified in protester’s quotation. Considering that, GAO noted that the protester’s lack of retention techniques for cleared personnel was a significant factor in finding that the protester’s quotation did not offer the best value, and that the agency characterized the weakness as troubling. Since the agency should have also identified a troubling weakness in SRA’s quotation and because ManTech was lower-priced, GAO could not conclude that the agency would have reached the same source selection decision without the error.
ManTech Advanced Systems International Inc. is represented by Stuart B. Nibley, Amy Conant Hoang, and Erica L. Bakies of K&L Gates LLP. The government is represented by Douglas J. Becker, Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.