The protester objected to the adjectival ratings assigned to its proposal. The protester claimed its Good ratings should’ve been Outstanding, and its Acceptable ratings should’ve been Good. GAO didn’t find the arguments compelling. The protester’s proposal had strengths, but there’s no legal requirement an offeror receive a higher rating based on the number of strengths. Ultimately, the protester’s proposal provided some benefits but not enough for higher ratings.
New Generation Solutions, LLC, GAO B-421273
Background
The Army posted an RFP seeking information technology services. Eleven offerors, including New Generation Solutions and NexTech LinTech, submitted proposals. The Army awarded the contract to NexTech. New Generation protested.
Analysis
Adjectival Ratings
New Generation objected to (1) the Good rating it received under the Technical factor, (2) the Acceptable rating it received under the Management/Staffing factor, and (3) its overall Good rating. New Generation contended that given the number of strengths it received, it should’ve received an Outstanding rating under the Technical factor, a Good rating under the Management factor, and an overall rating of Outstanding.
GAO wasn’t persuaded. Adjectival ratings are a guide to intelligent decision making. There is no legal requirement an agency award the highest possible rating simply because a proposal has strengths and no weaknesses. Here the Army awarded New Generation strengths but reasonably concluded the level of detail in the proposal prevented it from being truly outstanding.
Best Value Tradeoff
New Generation alleged the Army didn’t properly consider the benefits of its lower price before selecting NexTech’s higher-priced proposal. GAO didn’t agree. The Army identified benefits in New Generation’s proposal, but reasonably concluded NexTech’s proposal provided more advantages.
New Generation is represented by Jon D. Levin, W. Brad English, Emily J. Chancey, and Nicholas Greer of Maynard Cooper & Gale PC. The intervenor, NexTech, is represented by Michelle F. Kantor and Sanford E. Watson of McDonald Hopkins LLC. The agency is represented by Major Heather M. Martin, Dana J. Chase, Andrew Smith and Major Bruce Mayeaux of the Army. GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
