Protest challenging government’s evaluation of the protester’s and the awardee’s proposals is denied. The agency did not apply unstated evaluation criteria when it assigned the awardee a significant strength for submitting audited financial statements. Additionally, the agency did not engage in unequal treatment in assigning a strength for the awardee’s low debt-to-income ratio; the protester’s ratio was not comparable. Also, contrary to the protester’s arguments, the agency was not obligated to discuss the protester’s higher price. The fact that the protester’s price was higher than the awardee’s did not mean the protester’s price was a problem. Finally, in making its source selection decision, the agency properly went beyond adjectival ratings and compared the relative merits of the offerors’ approaches.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) awarded a contract for employee relocation services to Reliance Relocation Services, Inc. An unsuccessful offeror, ARC Relocation, LLC, filed a protest with GAO, challenging the evaluation of its own and Reliance’s proposals.
ARC alleged that CBP applied unstated evaluation criteria when it gave Reliance a significant strength for submitting audited financial statements. The solicitation, ARC argued did not require offerors to submit audited financial statements.
But GAO found that CBP did not assign a significant strength for audited statements. Rather, it assigned the significant strength for Reliance’s high net income. It then noted that the reliability of audited financial statements simply increased the likelihood that Reliance had the financial capability to perform the contract. Agencies may properly take into account specific matters that are related to evaluation criteria. The audited financial statement clearly related to the solicitation’s financial capability criteria. GAO found nothing wrong with the CBP considering Reliance’s audited statements as an added benefit.
Next, ARC contended that CBP engaged in unequal treatment by assigning Reliance a strength for a low debt-to-income ratio but not assigning a strength to ARC for an even lower debt-to-income ratio. But GAO found that difference in the offerors rating on debt-to-income were based on differences in their quotes. While ARC had a slightly lower debt-to-income ratio than Reliance for some years, it was not a significant difference. On other hand, ARC had a significantly higher debt-to-income ratio than Reliance for 2017. This difference supported the strength assigned to Reliance.
ARC further argued that as the incumbent, it should have been assigned a significant strength, rather than a mere strength, under the solicitation’s property management subfactor. But GAO found that the agency reasonably evaluated ARC under this subfactor, and that ARC’s argument was simply disagreement with the agency’s reasonable judgment.
ARC also complained that CBP did not conduct reasonable discussions, because it did not raise the issue of ARC’s higher price during discussions. GAO, however, found that CBP was not obligated to discuss ARC’s price just because it was higher than Reliance’s. In fact, CBP determined that ARC’s price was fair and reasonable. What’s more, ARC had a chance to submit proposal revisions in which it could have reduced its price. ARC, however, declined to do so.
Finally, ARC challenged the source selection decision, arguing that CBP had erroneously concluded that Reliance and ARC were equal under the technical factor, ignoring that ARC had higher ratings on two subfactors while Reliance only had a higher rating on one. GAO rejected this argument, noting that the agency properly looked beyond the ratings and compared the relative merits of each proposal. CBP reasonably found that while ARC had an advantage on two subfactors, Reliance’s advantage on the financial capability subfactor was equal to ARC’s advantages in terms of benefits to the government.
ARD is represented by W. Barron A. Averyand Robert T. Razzano of Baker & Hostetler LLP. The intervenor, Reliance, is represented by William F. Savarino of Cordatis LLP. The agency is represented by Kimberly L. Cohen of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Uri R. Yoo and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.
