Jamie Lamor Thompson | Shutterstock

Protest challenging agency’s technical and price evaluations is denied. The protester contended its proposal should have been assessed more strengths. GAO, however, found that the protester was essentially arguing that it should have received higher ratings due to its incumbency status. But offerors are not entitled to extra credit just being the incumbent. The protester also challenged the evaluation of the awardee’s staffing approach and price. GAO found that the agency had raised concerns with the awardee’s staffing and pricing during discussions, and the awardee had assuaged the agency’s concerns. GAO found that the agency had reasonably accepted the awardee’s explanations.

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) posted an RFP seeking maintenance of automated fuel handling equipment. The incumbent, ENGlobal Government Services, Inc. (EGS), and Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) submitted proposals. DLA awarded the contract to KBR finding that its lower-priced proposal presented the best value. EGS protested.

EGS objecting to its evaluation under the technical and management factors, arguing that DLA should have assigned its proposal more strengths. GAO noted that these arguments were largely based on EGS’s belief that as the incumbent, its proposal merited the highest evaluation ratings. But there is no requirement that in incumbent be given extra credit for its status as the incumbent.

What’s more, GAO found that EGS didn’t really deserve additional strengths. For instance, EGS alleged it should have received an additional strength for proposing use of its custom programmed software, which it specifically built to meet the requirements. But GAO noted that the agency had assessed EGS a strength for this factor. GAO was not persuaded that the company deserved even more credit for this feature of its proposal.

Additionally, EGS contended that it should have received a strength for understanding all the requirements. GAO, however, reasoned that the RFP required, at a minimum, that offerors demonstrate their understanding of the requirements. To the extent that EGS was complaining that the agency had not addressed this aspect of its proposal, GAO reasoned that an agency is not required to document every single aspect of an evaluation.

EGS asserted that DLA failed to consider the risk associated with KBR’s approach to hiring the incumbent workforce. But GAO noted that while the agency had concerns with KBR’s approach, it had raised these concerns during discussions. Based on BKBR’s responses, DLA reasonably concluded that KBR would be able to meet the agency’s requirements. EGS’s arguments ultimately reflected disagreement with DLA’s evaluation conclusions.

EGS complained that DLA had failed to sufficiently evaluate the realism of KBR’s proposed price. Again, however, GAO noted that DLA had raised this issue during discussions, and that KBR had provided more explanation regarding its price. The agency concluded that KBR’s prices were realistic, finding that the cost difference was based on KBR’s staffing approach. GAO found that DLA reasonably considered KBR’s lower price and found that it did not warrant assessment of a risk.

As part of its price realism argument, EGS alleged that DLA did not evaluate whether KBR comprehended the complexity of the proposed work. GAO rejected this argument. While EGS complained that KBR’s price should have prompted greater scrutiny, EGS had not established that the RFP required any greater scrutiny. The nature and extent of a price realism analysis is within the agency’s discretion. An agency is not obligated to verify every element of an offeror’s price.

ENG is represented by Alexander J. Brittin of Brittin Law Group, PLLC and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer of Dunlap Bennet & Ludwig PLLC. The intervenor, KBR, is represented by Seth H. Locke, Julia M. Fox, and Paul M. Korol of Perkins Coie LLP. The agency is represented by Colleen T. Loughram and Rachel M. Noble of the Defense Logistics Agency. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.