The protester challenged various aspects of the evaluation, including discussions. The protester alleged the agency misunderstood its labor rates, and this misunderstanding resulted in misleading discussions, which caused the protester to raise its labor rates. GAO, however, found that even if the agency misunderstood the rates, it had not forced the protester to raise its rates. Rather, the agency advised that the protester should increase its rates or explain them better. The protester was not misled; it simply made a decision to raise its rates.
General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., GAO B-420589, B-420589.2
Background
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) issued an RFP for an IDIQ contract for information technology services. Specifically, the RFP sought to unify the IT systems of several DoD agencies. In addition to the IDIQ contract, the RFP anticipated simultaneous award of an initial task order to start migrating some agencies to the unified system.
After receiving seven proposals, DISA established a competitive range consisting of two offerors: General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) and Leidos, Inc. Following discussions, DISA awarded the contract to Leidos, finding that its proposal was technically superior to and cheaper than GDIT’s. GDIT protested.
Legal Analysis
Assessment of Additional Strengths
GDIT contended that its proposal should have received additional strengths for beneficial features of its proposal. GAO wasn’t persuaded, finding that GDIT simply disagreed with DISA’s evaluation conclusions. Additionally, for one of GDIT’s allegedly beneficial features—automation—GAO reasoned that Leidos had the same feature. So if DISA had assigned a strength to GDIT, it would have had to assign one to Leidos, which meant that GDIT had not been prejudiced by the failure to assign a strength.
Unequal Evaluation
GDIT asserted DISA failed to assign two strengths to its proposal while Leidos received strengths for substantively indistinguishable features. GAO did not think the proposals were indistinguishable. As an example, Leidos clearly explained its helpdesk support during the migration process while GDIT did not specifically address helpdesk support as part of the migration phase.
Leidos’s Staffing Approach Was Acceptable
GDIT alleged that Leidos proposed staffing hours for planning and migration were unrealistically low and should have resulted in DISA finding its proposal unacceptable. GAO noted that Leidos simply proposed a more aggressive approach to staffing while GDIT’s was more consdervative. While each approach presented benefits and risks, neither was unacceptable.
Misleading Discussions
GDIT complained that the agency misunderstood its labor mapping which resulted in misleading discussion that caused GDIT to increase its labor rates. GAO rejected the argument. Even if DISA had misunderstood GDIT’s labor mapping, the agency had asked GDIT to either (1) revise its rates, or (2) better explain them with supporting documentation. GDIT chose to increase its rates. GAO found the company had not been misled into increasing its rates, it simply made an independent business decision in responding to discussions.
Past Performance
GDIT objected to the past performance evaluation, arguing that DISA failed to consider Leidos’s negative past performance on another DISA contract. GAO noted that Liedos submitted two very relevant past performance references. Given these references, GAO reasoned that even if DISA had considered the negative past performance information on the other contract, it would not have changed Leidos’s overall past performance rating.
GDIT is represented by Noah B. Bleicher, Nathaniel E. Castellano, Carla J. Weiss, Moshe B. Broder, and Scott E. Whitman of Jenner & Block LLP. The intervenor, Leidos, is represented by James J, McCullough, Michael J. Anstett, Alexander B. Ginsberg, Katherine St. Romain, and Elizabeth Kalanchoe of Fried Frank Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LP, as well as Deneen J. Melander, Michael L. Waldman, and Jason Shaffer of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP. The agency is represented by Kara G. Hong and James W. DeBose of the Department of Defense. GAO attorneys Evad D. Wesser and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
