The protester challenged the reasonableness of the agency's best-value tradeoff decision and the evaluation of the awardee's past performance. It argued that the agency inadequately documented its decision and that the awardee's proposal did not meet solicitation requirements. GAO ruled that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and well-documented and determined that the protester lacked an economic interest in challenging the award.
SOFITC3, LLC v. Department of Defense, GAO, B-423259.3; B-423259.4
- Background - The agency sought proposals for test and evaluation information technology services. The protester, SOFITC3, challenged the agency's decision to award the contract to the awardee, OTOT Technologies. SOFITC3 alleged weaknesses in the evaluation of OTOT’s past performance and a poorly documented best-value tradeoff decision. The protest was filed after the agency had already reevaluated proposals following an earlier decision to take corrective action.
- Best-Value Tradeoff Challenge - The protester argued that the agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis was unreasonable and insufficiently documented. GAO stated that the agency had documented its evaluation effectively, considering the relative merits and costs of the competing proposals. The contracting officer analyzed various factors in making the award decision, finding that the differences in past performance between the protester and the awardee were negligible and that the lower price offered by the awardee justified the award decision. GAO concluded that the protester’s concerns did not warrant a reversal of the decision.
- Interested Party Status - GAO determined that because an intervening offeror (Offeror X) was next in line for the award if the protester’s arguments were sustained. Thus, the protester lacked the economic interest needed to continue its protest. No matter the outcome of the protest, the proposal of Offeror X would still be prioritized over the protester’s, leading GAO to dismiss the remaining allegations.
The protester is represented by Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Cassidy Kim, Esq., and Olivia C. Bellini, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The intervenor, OTOT Technologies, LLC, is represented by Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., Ryan J. Boonstra, Esq., Abigail Finan, Esq., and Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., of Piliero Mazza, PLLC. The government is represented by Nathaniel H. Sears, Esq., and Weston E. Borkenhagen, Esq., of the Department of Defense. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., participated in the decision.