The agency’s position in this protest creates a semantic/metaphysical conundrum. The solicitation stated that the award would be made based on a best-value tradeoff with corporate experience as the most important factor. The agency, however, claimed that it was only required to evaluate corporate experience on a pass/fail basis. In sustaining the protest, GAO found the agency’s position incoherent. An agency cannot weigh the importance of a criterion when that criterion is only assessed on a pass/fail basis. The fact that the solicitation designated a criterion as “most important” necessarily established that the agency would perform a qualitative evaluation, and not merely tick off a pass/fail checklist.
CACI, Inc.-Federal, GAO B-420441 et al.
Background
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued a solicitation for information technology management. The solicitation contemplated a two phase evaluation. In the first phase, TSA would consider proposals under the corporate experience and technical factors. Offerors who were found acceptable in the first phase would move to the second phase, where TSA would evaluate price and revised technical volumes. Award would be made on a best value basis with corporate experience the most important factor.
TSA received several offers, including proposals from CACI, Inc.-Federal and Perspecta Enterprise Solutions. TSA awarded the contract to Perspecta, finding that it offered a superior proposal at a lower price. CACI protested.
Legal Analysis
- TSA Erred in Evaluating Corporate Experience on a Pass/Fail Basis – CACi alleged TSA should have evaluated corporate experience qualitatively but erred in evaluating the factor on a pass/fail basis. TSA argued that the solicitation established that experience would be evaluated on a pass fail basis. GAO rejected TSA’s argument. The only reference to a pass/fail evaluation with respect to corporate experience simply described the basis from proceeding from phase one to phase two. That reference did not describe how experience would be assessed in phase two. Indeed, phase two contemplated a trade-off among factors with corporate experience being the most important factor. Absent a qualitative evaluation, the reference to experience as the most important factor made no sense.
- Solicitation Was Not Ambiguous – TSA suggested that the solicitation had inconsistent evaluation criteria regarding corporate experience with language that indicated a pass/fail and a qualitative evaluation. TSA argued this created a patent ambiguity that CACI should have challenged before the proposal deadline. GAO did not find the solicitation ambiguous. While the solicitation stated that TSA would compare corporate experience to determine if the references met the stated criteria, this, contrary to TSA’s contentions, did not preclude the possibility of a qualitative analysis. TSA could, on the one hand, consider the degree to which an offeror’s experience met the criteria while, on the other, use that analysis to qualitatively compare experience in a tradeoff analysis. Indeed, this interpretation harmonized the solicitation’s seemingly inconsistent language regarding experience.
- TSA Did Not Qualitatively Assess Experience – Despite its argument that the solicitation only required a pass/fail evaluation of experience, TSA argued that it actually had qualitatively assessed experience. GAO disagreed. While the SSA may have compared offerors’ satisfactory experience ratings, this comparison could not have been regarded as a meaningful qualitative comparison.
- GAO Rejected CACI’s Other Arguments – CACI challenged weaknesses assessed to its proposal and alleged a disparate evaluation, but GAO found these arguments meritless.
CACI is represented by Gary J. Campbell, Kelley Doran, and Miles McCann of Womble Bond Dickinson LLP. The intervenor, Perspecta, is represented by J. Scott Hommer, III, Calen E, McCallum, Rebecca E. Pearson, Christopher Griesedieck, Taylor A. Hillman, Lindsay A. Reed, and Steven R. Compere of Venable LLP. The agency is represented by Christopher J. Curry, Kimberly M. Shackleford, and Christian Jordan of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan and Edward Goldsteind participated in the preparation of the decision.
