Protest challenging agency's evaluation is denied. The protester argued the agency didn't properly assess price realism. The court found the agency reasonably determined the awardee could realistically perform. The protester contended the agency applied unstated criteria when it found the awardee’s approach more “collaborative” and “distinctive”. But the court opined that these terms were throw-away lines that did not meaningfully impact the award decision.
Background
The Army issued an RFQ seeking technical support for a unit that integrates new technology into weapons. Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation and Booz Allen Hamilton submitted quotations. The Army selected Booz Allen. While Intuitive’s proposal had more technical strengths, Booz Allen proposed a lower price. The Army also noted that Booz Allen’s approach was more “collaborative, distinctive, and efficient.”
Intuitive filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the Army failed to properly evaluate price realism and applied unstated criteria in the source selection decision.
Legal Analysis
- Army Correctly Analyzed Price Realism -- Intuitive alleged Booz Allen's pricers were unrealistically low because it proposed to use an administrative specialist for tasks that position was not qualified to perform. This, Intuitive argued, indicated Booz Allen did not understand the work. But the court found Intuitive had misunderstood Booz Allen’s proposal. Booz Allen had actually proposed to use the administrative specialist for simple tasks. The Army reasonably found that Booz Allen could realistically perform with its approach to the administrative specialist.
- Army Didn’t Apply Unstated Criteria -- The source selection decision had noted that Booz Allen’s approach was collaborative and efficient. Intuitive argued that these “loosey-goosey, business-lite” terms did not appeal in the RFQ and the evaluators had made no findings based on those terms, so the Army must have relied on unstated criteria. But the court found that these terms were mere surplusage that had no impact on the evaluation. It was clear that the ultimate discriminator between proposals was price, not collaboration or distinctiveness.
Intuitive is represented by Jon D. Levin, W. Brad English, Emily J. Chancey, Dale Gipson, and Nicholas P. Greer. The intervenor, Booz Allen, is represented by Gary J. Campbell, G. Matthew Koehl, and Lidiya Kurin. The government is represented by Geoffrey M. Long, Brian M. Boynton, Martin F. Hockey, Jr., and Elizabeth M. Hosford of the Department of Justice as well as Philip Aubart and Benjamin H. Jarrell of the Army.