Post-award protest challenging agency’s technical and price evaluations is denied. The protester’s rating under the Corporate Experience factor was warranted because it failed to demonstrate past experience of similar size and complexity, and its description of its experience was vague and conclusory. Additionally, the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposed PWS was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. GAO also rejected the protester’s challenge to the price evaluation, finding the agency was not required to evaluate price realism.
The Department of Homeland Security issued an RFQ to establish a blanket purchase agreement and award a task order to support FEMA’s Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration. Jefferson Consulting Group, LLC and Garud Technology Services (GTS) submitted quotes. DHS awarded the contract to GTS finding that it had a superior technical approach and a lower price. Jefferson protested.
Jefferson contended that it should have received a High Relevance rating—rather than Some Relevance—under the most important Corporate Experience factor. But GAO found that Jefferson’s rating was warranted because it failed to demonstrate experience of comparable size and complexity. Moreover, Jefferson’s vague references to experience “preparing for board meetings” did not demonstrate experience supporting Acquisition Review Boards that the agency sought.
The solicitation required offerors to submit a proposed performance work statement. DHS rated Jefferson’s proposed PWS as Good, assigning it a weakness because the company’s labor mix did not reflect various levels of experience. Jefferson argued that the RFQ did not advise contractors that the agency sought varying degrees of experience.
But the RFQ stated that the agency would evaluate the efficiency—i.e., productivity vs. expense—of each proposed solution. GAO found that the agency was reasonably concerned that Jefferson’s proposed staffing plan created a potential for wasted effort and expense, and the evaluation properly reflected that concern.
Next, Jefferson argued that DHS had failed to adequately document its determination that GTS’s staffing level was adequate. But GAO found that the evaluation record discussed specific innovations and efficiencies in GTS’s staffing approach and explicitly identified task order objectives that were beneficially impacted by those innovations. Jefferson may have disagreed with those judgments, but it failed to explain why those judgments were unreasonable.
Jefferson also contended that due to GTS’s “cut-rate price,” DHS should have conducted a price realism analysis. Specifically, Jefferson claimed the RFQ incorporated FAR 52.222-46, which required the agency to determine whether an offeror’s proposed professional compensation was realistic.
GAO found that the RFQ did not include FAR 52.222-46. Moreover, the RFQ contemplated award of a fixed-price contract, which meant that DHS was only required to determine whether offerors’ prices were fair and reasonable. DHS’s failure to perform a realism analysis was reasonable.
Jefferson is represented by Stuart W. Turner, Kristen E. Ittig, and Michael E. Samuels of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP. The intervenor, GTS, is represented by John E. Jensen and Robert C. Starling of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The government is represented by Rina E. Martinez and Hillary J. Freund of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott, John Sorrenti , and Christina Sklarew participated in preparation of the decision.
