Protest challenging agency’s best value tradeoff is granted. The awardee had the lowest rated proposal on non-price factors. Despite this, the SSA’s analysis went to great lengths to smooth over differences between proposals and create a false impression of equivalence between the awardee’s proposal and other in the competitive range. Having equalized proposals, the SSA selected the awardee’s lowest priced offer even though its price was only a few percentage points lower than other higher-rated offers. The court found that the SSA’s attempt to level proposals improperly turned a best value tradeoff into a lowest-price technically acceptable procurement.
The Army issued a solicitation for advanced helicopter flight training. Several offerors, including System Studies & Simulation, Inc.(S3) and L3 Doss Aviation, submitted proposals. After evaluating proposals, the Army found that S3 had higher ratings than L3 under the solicitation’s technical and past performance factors. The Army also found that S3’s price was slightly—about 6%—higher than L3’s. The source selection authority determined that S3’s and L3’s proposals were virtually equal under the non-price factors. Thus, the SSA awarded the contract to L3 based on its lower price.
S3 filed a protest with the COFC contended that the Army (1) failed to assign S3 a strength under the solicitation’s staffing factor, and (2) conducted an irrational best value analysis. L3 intervened, and all the parties moved for judgment on the administrative record.
The court first addressed S3’s claims that it should have received a strength under the staffing factor. The court found that even if the Army erred in failing to assign a strength to S3’s staffing approach, S3 had not been prejudiced. S3 failed to explain how the strength would have changed its standing relative to other proposals. Indeed, rather than distinguishing its proposal from L3’s, an additional strength under the staffing factor would have made S3’s proposal more similar to L3’s.
The court next turned to S3’s challenge to the best value analysis. S3 first claimed that the analysis was flawed because the Army had failed to adequately assess L3 under the solicitation’s past performance factor by failing to account for problems that L3—the incumbent—had staffing prior contracts. But the court found that L3’s staffing issues were not as bleak as S3 suggested. The staffing shortage were due more to trends in the flight instructor industry than L3’s performance.
The court did, however, find that the Army’s tradeoff analysis was flawed. L3 had the lowest rated proposal of any offeror in the competitive range. Yet, throughout the source selection decision, the SSA attempted to equalize the relative merits of the offerors. She acknowledged rating difference between proposals but still concluded that the proposals were the same. She attempted to smooth over significant differences between proposals by repeatedly emphasizing the government’s reasonable expectation that all the offeror could successfully perform the contract. The court reasoned that assurances that an offeror is “more than adequate” have no place in a best value tradeoff. The court determined that the SSA minimized differences between and created a false impression of equivalence between proposals.
Had the SSA been faced with a significant price difference, the court continued, the rejection of higher priced proposals would have been less glaring. But in this case, L3’s proposal was only 6% lower than S3’s and only 3% lower than another offeror in the competitive range. Rather than actively weighing offerors non-price rating against their prices, the SSA improperly turned the acquisition into a lowest-priced technically acceptable procurement.
S3 is represented by Walter B. English. The intervenor, L3, is represented by Kevin Mullen. The government is represented by Christopher L. Harlow of the U.S. Department of Justice.
