The protester complained that the agency disparately evaluated quotations with respect to typos. The agency had assessed a confidence decreaser to the protester due to typos in its quotation. The protester argued that the awardee’s quotation also had a bunch of typos, but the agency didn’t assess the awardee a confidence decreaser. GAO found the disparate ratings were reasonably based on the magnitude of typos in each quotation. The protester’s proposal had more typos, many of which made portions of the proposal meaningless.
Guidehouse, Inc., GAO B-421132, B-421132.2
Background
FEMA posted an RFQ seeking enterprise program and technical support services. Four vendors, including Guidehouse, Inc. and Deloitte Consulting, submitted quotations. FEMA selected Deloitte, finding that the company’s superior technical approach merited a price premium. Guidehouse protested.
Analysis
Guidehouse’s Technical Approach
FEMA determined that lack of details in Guidehouse’s technical approach reduced confidence in successful performance. Guidehouse challenged these confidence deceasers, arguing it had provided sufficient detail and that its response conformed to the solicitation’s requirements. GAO found that Guidehouse’s arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation conclusions.
Disparate Treatment—Confidence Decreasers
Guidehouse contended the agency disparately assessed confidence decreasers for typos in proposals. FEMA assessed a confidence decreaser to Guidehouse for several typos in the quotation, which led to agency concern regarding the quality of Guidehouse’s work. Guidehouse argued that Deloitte also had several typos in its quotation but didn’t’ receive similar a confidence decreaser.
GAO, however, found that the typos in Guidehouse’s quotation were of a different magnitude. Guidehouse’s typos rendered portions its proposal meaningless. Deloitte had fewer typos, and those typos did not make Deloitte’s quotation meaningless.
Disparate Treatment—Confidence Increasers
Guidehouse also asserted that FEMA disparately assessed confidence increasers. Guidehouse complained that Deloitte had received a confidence increaser for offering to integrate FEMA’s internal government bodies and for focusing on stakeholder customer experience. Guidehouse reasoned its proposal had similarly proposed to integrate governance bodies and focus on stakeholder experience.
GAO noted that FEMA’s explanation of the differences between Guidehouse’s and Deloitte’s proposals relied on a fine level of detail. Nevertheless, given the inherently subjective nature of evaluators’ judgments, GAO could not say the evaluation was unreasonable.
Best Value Tradeoff
Guidehouse contended that the best value tradeoff was essentially a sham—that FEMA had pre-made an award decision and then wrote a best value decision to justify it. As evidence, Guidehouse pointed to an email from the SSA to evaluators in which the SSA had asked the evaluators for a recommendation and then stated, “once selected, I will work with you to prepare a technical tradeoff.” Guidehouse reasoned that this email showed the award decision was not based on the outcome of a tradeoff. GAO, however, found that while the SSA’s email was inartfully worded, it did not indicate bad faith.
Guidehouse is represented by Brian G. Walsh, Tracye W. Howard, Cara L. Lasley, and Morgan W. Huston of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor, Deloitte, is represented by Keith R. Szeliga, Adam A. Bartolanzo, and Shaunna Bailey of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. The agency is represented by Sarah S. Jaward and Matthew Lane of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
