Share:
The agency ran two parallel procurements. The protesters submitted identical approaches in both procurements but received different ratings. The protesters claimed the disparate ratings showed that the agency had internal inconsistencies. COFC disagreed. The solicitation clearly stated that the procurements were separate and distinct, carried out by different evaluation teams.
Westwind Partners, LLP, et al. v. United States, COFC Nos. 24-1504C et al.
- Context – The agency ran two parallel procurements. One functional category covered computer software (Software) and another covered information technology hardware and services known as the “ITVAR” functional category. Offerors could submit proposals for one or both functional categories.
- Protest – The protesters submitted materially identical proposals regarding their supply chain risk management (SCRM) approaches for both functional categories. However, their approaches received a “High Confidence” rating for the software category while simultaneously receiving a “Low Confidence” rating for the ITVAR category. The protesters challenged this discrepancy, claiming it showed internal inconsistency. Furthermore, the protesters sought to complete or supplement the administrative record by adding their Software proposal and records of the Software team’s evaluation.
- Decision – The Court denied the motion to complete or supplement the administrative record. The Solicitation required separate and distinct proposals. The Software and ITVAR proposals were in parallel tracks, not together. As such, the protesters were not allowed to complete or supplement record of the ITVAR protest with documents from the Software procurement. The different ratings were not due to inconsistencies. The solicitation was explicit that the evaluations would proceed separately by separate teams.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
Share:
