Veles Studio | Shutterstock

The solicitation instructed offerors to provide contract numbers and dates for contract references that demonstrated their experience. The awardee, however, did not provide the required information for one of its references. This SSA overlooked the omission because, based on her personal knowledge, she knew the contractor had the claimed experience. GAO found that this was fine. Evaluators may rely on their own personal knowledge in assessing proposals.

Veterans Choice Medical Equipment, LLC, GAO B-419991, B-419991.2

Background

The Department of Veterans Affairs posted a solicitation seeking in-home oxygen and ventilator services. Under the solicitation’s experience factor, offerors were instructed to submit a narrative describing their experience and the contract number and dates for each contract reference included in the narrative. 

The VA received proposals from Veterans Choice Medical Equipment and MId-Cities Home Medical Delivery Service. Mid-Cities submitted a single contract reference for its subcontractor. While that reference mentioned that the contractor was providing ventilator services for the VA, it did not include the number and dates for that contract. 

But the SSA, who was a branch chief and a VA contracting officer, personally knew that Mid-Cities’s subcontractor had been providing ventilator services. Based on this personal knowledge, the SSA found that Mid-Cities had extensive experience in providing home ventilator services. The SSA awarded the contract to Mid-Cities. Veterans Choice protested.

Legal Analysis

  • VA Was Not Required to Reject Mid-Cities’ Proposal – Veterans Choice alleged the agency unreasonably considered the experience of Mid-Cities’s subcontractor because the proposal did not include the contract number and dates for the reference. But the contract only stated that failure to provide information on the reference “may be viewed” as lack of evidence of experience. The absence of such information did not obligate the VA to reject Mid-Cities proposal.
  • SSA Could Rely on Personal Knowledge – Veterans Choice also complained that the SSA had relied on her personal knowledge in evaluating Mid-Cities’s experience. GAO found this was not a problem. GAO decisions have long held that an agency may consider experience known to the agency but not in a proposal.

Veterans Choice is represented by David F. Dowd of Mayer Brown, LLP. The intervenor, Mid-Cities, is represented by Peter B. Ford, Katherine B. Burrows, Timothy F. Valley, and Anna R. Wright of PilieroMazza PLLC. The agency is represented by Daniel McFeely of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.