SBA regulations require that an agency not hold a protege member of mentor-protege JV to the same standards as other offerors. The protester said the agency violated this rule. The COFC disagreed. The rule may prevent an agency from holding a protege to the same requirements as other offerors, but it doesn’t insulate a protege from a critical evaluation.
HealthRev, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 24-0352
- Evaluation of Mentor-Protege JVs – Under 13 C.F.R. 125.8(e), when evaluating a small business, mentor-protege joint venture, the agency cannot require the protege to individually meet the same evaluation criteria as other offerors generally. Here, the protester was a mentor-protege JV. The protester argued the agency violated the SBA regulation by requiring the protester’s protege member to meet the same standards as other offerors.
- Experience – The protester complained the agency wrongly singled out the protege’s lack of experience placing employees. But the COFC didn’t see a problem. Section 13 C.F.R. 125.8 does not require that agencies evaluate proteges in a vacuum. Rather, the regulation requires the agency evaluate proteges alongside the mentor and the JV itself. Proteges must bring some experience of the type of work performed under the contract. Here, the agency reasonably noted the protege lacked the experience required by the contract.
- Program Management – The protester complained that the agency unreasonably assessed a weakness based on the protege’s lack of program management experience. The protege complained that the agency was requiring the protege to meet all the requirements. But the court noted the protester received the weakness because the protege had been proposed as the lead on all program management tasks, which required it to manage tasks outside of its experience., This problem could have been mitigated by naming the mentor as the lead on some tasks.
- Past Performance – The protester claimed its past performance had been improperly downgraded because the agency held the protege to the same performance standards as other offerors. Not so, said the court. The agency had found problems with the mentor’s past performance, and it reasonably concluded the protege’s past performance could not mitigate the mentor’s issues.
- Disparate Treatment – The protester contended the agency had disparately evaluated proposals by preferring the awardee even though the protester and awardee offered similar approaches. The court rejected the argument. The awardee offered benefits the protester did not. What’s more, portions of the protester’s proposal were ambiguous and confusing.
The protester is represented by Merle DeLancey, Jr. of Blank Rome LLP. The awardee is represented by John Prairie of Wiley Rein LLP. The agency is represented by Liridona Sinani of the Department of Justice.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
