The agency assessed the awardee a neutral past performance rating due its sparse performance record. The protester, who was the incumbent, complained that this neutral rating had improperly flattened real differences in past performance experience and neutered its incumbency advantage. The court, however, found that nothing in the solicitation gave extra credit for incumbency. Moreover, while the awardee’s past performance record was sparse, it was also somewhat relevant. In light of this relevance, assessing the awardee a rating less than neutral would have been unreasonable.
Integrated Finance & Accounting Solutions, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 22-581
Background
The Defense Information System Agency (DISA) issued an RFQ for finance and budgeting support services. Previously, the work sought by the RFQ had been performed under multiple contracts. But the RFQ merged DISA’s requirements into a single contract.
Integrated Finance & Accounting Solutions (IFAS) was the incumbent on two of the contracts that had been merged into the RFQ. IFAS submitted a quotation in response to the RFQ. But DISA selected another company, enGenuis Consulting Group. IFAS had a superior past performance rating, but DISA concluded the higher rating was not worth IFAS’s price premium. IFAS filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims.
Court’s Analysis
Combined Contract References
The RFQ’s past performance criteria stated that “similar scope of efforts should demonstrate as many of the area types included in the PWS (either individually or in combination thereof) as possible.” IFAS argued that this “in combination thereof” language required DISA to consider multiple contract references together. But, IFAS contended, DISA had not considered its contract references in combination, and if it had, IFAS would have covered almost every single task.
But the court found that IFAS had misinterpreted the “in combinations thereof” language. That language did not refer to the combining of past contracts. Instead, it referred to the combining of various work efforts within one contract to demonstrate relevance of that individual contract to the PWS. DISA had not erred in failing to combine contracts.
IFAS’s Weakness
DISA assessed a weakness to IFAS’s technical proposal for not demonstrating compliance with DoD processes and procedures for subtask 9. IFAS contended it had clearly demonstrated compliance with that process for subtask 8. The agency was thus fully aware IFAS could meet that process for subtask 9, so the weakness was not warranted. The court, however, found that DISA was not supposed to infer that compliance with subtask 8 necessarily meant compliance with subtask 9. DISA could not overlook the failure to address this procedure for subtask 9. The weakness was warranted.
enGenuis’s Past Performance
The RFQ provided that vendors without available past performance information would receive a neutral confidence past performance rating. DISA had assessed enGenues a neutral confidence rating. IFAS argued that the neutral rating had improperly flattened the past performance ratings, which ended up neutering IFAS’s incumbent advantage, eliminating disparity in true past performance experience.
The court noted that nothing in the RFQ gave extra credit for incumbent experience. Additionally, the agency had reasonably determined that there was scarce information on enGenuis’s past performance. In light of the deference given to agencies in evaluating past performance, the court did not think it was arbitrary for DISA to have concluded that there was not enough information on enGenuis for a meaningful confidence rating. Indeed, while enGenuis’s past performance was limited, it was also somewhat relevant. Under the circumstances, enGenuis should not have received a rating lower than neutral confidence.
Downplayed Weaknesses
DISA had assessed two weaknesses to enGenuis’s management approach. IFAS argued that DISA had downplaced these weaknesses, and that the weaknesses should have prevented enGenuis from receiving an Acceptable rating under the Management factor. The court, however, refused to second guess the agency. The agency had considered these weaknesses and reasonably concluded they posed no more than moderate risk of unsuccessful performance.
IFAS is represented by Thomas A. Coulter of Norton Rose Fulbright, US LLP. The intervenor, enGenuis, is represented by John D. Levin, W. Brad English, and Emily J. Chancey of Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C. The government is represented by Evan Wisser, Douglas K. Mickle, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brian Boynton of the Department of Justice as well as Susan M. Chagrin of the Defense Information Systems Agency.