Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation and best-value tradeoff is denied. The protester alleged that the agency ignored several objective strengths in its proposal. GAO, however, found that the protester had not established how these supposed strengths provided any meaningful benefit to the agency. The protester also contended that the agency had failed to document the best-value tradeoff. But the record showed that the agency had gone behind assigned adjectival ratings and compared the relative benefits of proposals.
The Defense Information Systems Agency issued a solicitation for implementation support services for DoD’s information network. By Light Professional IT Services, LLC and NES Associates, LLC both submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. DISA concluded that both proposals were technically equal. But NES had a slightly lower price and thus received the award. By Light protested, arguing that DISA had ignored several objective strengths in its proposal.
By Light contended that it should have received a strength for proposing pre-approved IR processes that reduced the need for government involvement in managing those processes. GAO reasoned that while this feature may have provided some benefit, the record did not establish how meaningful this hypothetical benefit would be. Absent some evidence that DISA erred, GAO saw no basis to question the agency’s refusal to assign a strength for this supposed benefit.
By Light also alleged that it should have received a strength for proposing to follow various best practices or commercial standards in its management plan. GAO noted that the solicitation did not require offerors to propose any particular commercial standards, but it did require offerors to employ commercial standards as part of establishing their management approach. That said, merely proposing standards that one had experience with was simply one way to demonstrate a comprehensive management approach. Even if proposing commercial standards exceeded the requirement in the solicitation, By Light had not established the nature of the benefit this would provide to DISA.
Aside from the allegedly ignored strengths, By Light also contended that DISA erred by not adequately documenting the best value tradeoff. GAO noted that while the tradeoff decision was brief, it demonstrated that DISA did not mechanically find that the two proposals were technically equal on the basis of adjectival ratings. Instead, the agency discussed the specific nature of the strengths assigned to each proposal and noted that they provided different benefits to the government.
By Light is represented by Damien C. Specht, James Tucker, and Alissandra Young of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The intervenor, NES, is represented by Andrew Shipley, Chanda L. Brown, and Philip Beshara of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
The agency is represented by Michelle L. Sabin, Nati Silva, and Vera A. Strebel of the Defense Information Systems Agency. GAO attorneys Michael Willems and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
