El Nariz | Shutterstock

Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied. The protester argued that agency misevaluated the price realism of the awardee’s professional compensation. GAO found that while the agency had some concerns about the awardee’s compensation approach, it had sufficiently resolved those concerns and reasonably found the awardee’s compensation rates reasonable. The protest further argued that the technical evaluation was flawed, but GAO found the protester had not been prejudiced by the putative error.

The Department of Justice issued a solicitation for award of an IDIQ contract for training support services. Engility Services, LLC and PAE Government Services, Inc. submitted proposals. Engility had a slightly higher technical rating but a lower price. DOJ awarded the contract to PAE, finding that the technical benefits of Engility’s proposal did not outweigh its $48.6 million price premium. Engility filed a protest, arguing that DOJ misevaluated PAE’s proposal.

Engility contended that DOJ failed to properly evaluate the price realism of PAE’s professional compensation. PAE, Engility argued, offered its professionals low fringe benefits, which created performance risk.

GAO found that DOJ had conducted discussions with PAE concerning its fringe benefits. The company explained that many of its professionals were retired and already had fringe benefits. DOJ also checked with the contracting officer on one of PAE’s other contracts and learned that PAE’s lack of fringe benefits on that contract did not hurt performance.

Engility alleged that the realism evaluation was still flawed because DOJ did not consider whether PAE’s compensation plan would be sufficient to retain professionals. But GAO noted that while DOJ’s analysis did not specifically address whether PAE’s approach was realistic in terms of hiring personnel, the agency did find that PAE’s rates were competitive in the labor market. DOJ could reasonably conclude from that comparison that PAE was capable of hiring and retaining professionals.

Engility further argued that DOJ’s price evaluation failed to comply with FAR 52.22-46 because the agency did not compare PAE’s fringe benefits plan to other offerors’ plans. To the extent this was error, GAO did not believe Engility had been prejudiced by it. FAR 52.222-46 states that when a professional compensation plan offers lower compensation than other offerors, the agency must evaluate the proposal to determine whether the offeror can maintain high-quality work and professional employees. Assuming DOJ failed to compare PAE’s benefits to other offerors, the comparison would have only necessitated an additional evaluation. Because DOJ ultimately evaluated whether PAE could recruit and retain professionals, GAO did not think the error resulted in competitive prejudice.

Engility also contended that PAE’s technical proposal should have been rejected because the company did not submit past performance references and licensing information for its instructors. GAO, however, found that while the solicitation required offerors to submit references and licenses, it did not require such information from individual instructors. Additionally, to the extent this was an error, GAO did not believe Engility had been prejudiced. Engility had not alleged that that had it known the agency would not require past performance references, it would have hired more instructors.

Finally, Engility contended the source selection decision was flawed because the agency concluded that Engility’s and PAE’s proposals were equal when in fact Engility had received a higher technical score. GAO rejected this argument, reasoning that the agency had simply found that while Engility had a higher score, it did not really offer any advantages.

Engility is represented by James J. McCullough, Michael J. Anstett, and Brendan C. McNamara of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The intervenor, PAE, is represented by Jason A. Carey, J. Hunter Bennett, Andrew R. Guy, Evan R. Sherwood, and Brooke G. Stanley of Covington & Burling, LLP. The agency is represented by John R. Caterini and Kristen B. Hahn of the Department of Justice. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.