Protests challenging agency’s technical, past performance, and price evaluations as well as best value tradeoff are sustained. GAO found, among other issues, that the agency failed to document its technical evaluation and was unable to explain why an offeror that received 13 strengths only received a very good rating while an awardee with only 3 strengths received an exceptional rating. GAO also found that the agency applied unstated criteria in evaluating past performance. Additionally, GAO determined that the agency had erred in evaluating the resumes of key personnel. Finally, the agency erred in making the best value determination by failing to properly consider price and by not determining whether higher-rated, higher-priced proposals were worth the price premium.
The General Services Administration issued an RFQ under the Federal Supply Schedules provisions of FAR subpart 8.4. The RFQ sought design, development, configuration, and system security support for web services, web products, and applications. The RFQ contemplated establishment of multiple blanket purchase agreements.
GSA received 43 quotations in response to the RFQ. The agency selected nine vendors for award. Three unsuccessful vendors, FreeAlliance.com, Radus Software, LLC, and Mobomo, LLC, filed protests challenging various aspects of GSA’s evaluation.
FreeAlliance argued that GSA unreasonably assigned its technical quotation an overall rating of very good instead of exceptional. FreeAlliance contended that its quotation received more strengths under the non-price factors than all but two of the nine awardees. And yet, each of those awardees received an exceptional technical rating. Indeed, FreeAlliance noted, one of the awardees, TCG, Inc., had been assessed three strengths and received an overall rating of exceptional. FreeAlliance, on the other hand, had received 13 strengths and only received a very good rating.
GAO found FreeAlliance’s argument convincing. While it did not appear that the overall technical rating was based on a mechanical counting of strengths, the record did not explain why the strengths and weaknesses merited the assignment of a particular technical rating. The evaluation simply restated the definition for a given rating without explaining whether strengths and weaknesses were more important or offsetting. Additionally, with respect to TCG, GSA argued that the company’s three strengths merited an exceptional rating because they were “deeper” than FreeAlliance’s. But GAO reasoned that the record did not explain how the agency found that TCG’s strengths differed from FreeAlliance’s.
Mobomo challenged a weakness assigned to its proposal under the past performance factor. GSA found that three of Mobomo’s references did not address each of the RFQ’s five pools of work. Mobomo contended that the RFQ had not provided that each past performance reference would need to address each pool of work, so GSA applied unstated criteria.
GAO agreed with the Mobomo. The RFQ simply stated that past performance references would be evaluated to assess the relevance and quality of a vendor’s performance. The RFQ did not state that vendors who failed to address all five pools of work would be assessed a weakness.
Radus also alleged that GSA had erred in evaluating its past performance. GSA assessed a weakness to Radus for only providing a list of tasks and not explaining its past work. Radus contended that the RFQ only required vendors to provide enough for the agency to determine the relevance of the project. Thus, Radus concluded, in requiring more detailed descriptions, GSA had applied unstated criteria.
GAO rejected this argument. The RFQ included an attached past performance reference form that included an area for vendors to explain their performance under past contracts. GSA reasonably penalized Radus for only providing a list of tasks.
Next, Mobomo alleged that its evaluation under the key personnel experience factor was unreasonable because its proposal was assessed multiple strengths and no weaknesses yet it did not receive the top rating. GSA contended that it had mistakenly omitted a weakness assigned to Mobomo from the consensus report.
GAO noted that the record reflected a weakness identified by on the evaluators that was not included in the consensus report. Nevertheless, GAO found that GSA had not explained whether the strengths assessed to Mobomo could have offset this weakness.
Moreover, GAO found that the weakness itself was unreasonable. GSA assessed the weakness because Mobomo had not shown that its proposed program manager had experience in one of the 97 areas listed under the five work pools. GSA, however, had not explained why all 97 items in the pools were required to be addressed in the resume for a program manager, or why the particular item missing from Mobomo’s resume was so important that it had be addressed with specificity.
FreeAlliance objected to a weakness it received under the key personnel factor. GAO, however, found that this weakness was justified because the company’s resume for the program manager did not address how the individual’s experience related to the RFQ requirements.
Radus also challenged a weakness assessed to its key personnel. GAO agreed that one of the weaknesses assessed to Radus for failing to include specific examples of IT projects was unreasonable. This requirement was far removed from the stated evaluation criteria. Nevertheless, GAO noted that Radus had not been prejudiced by this weakness. It had been assessed other weaknesses under the key personnel factor. The company had not explained how the removal of a single weakness would improve its competitive position.
FreeAlliance challenged GSA’s price evaluation. The RFQ had provided that GSA would assess price reasonableness by determining whether at least 54.59 percent of the of a quotation’s proposed labor rates were equal to or below the average of proposed labor rates plus one standard deviation. GSA had found that only 50 percent of FreeAlliance’s rates were less than or equal to the average plus one standard deviation. But then GSA admitted that this was an error and that actually all of FreeAlliance’s rates were within the acceptable range. Still, GSA alleged that FreeAlliance had not been prejudiced by the error because only firms with exceptional ratings had been considered for award, and FreeAlliance did not have an exceptional rating.
But GAO had already found that the agency’s evaluation of FreeAlliance’s technical proposal was unreasonable, and that the company’s quotation might have warranted an exceptional rating. GSA concluded that FreeAlliance had been prejudiced by the agency’s price error.
Lastly, FreeAlliance challenged the award decision. FreeAlliance alleged that the award was improper because the tradeoff decision did not consider the cost to the government but simply ranked proposals based on the number of reasonable rates proposed.
GAO agreed. FAR part 8.4 requires that agencies engage in a comparative assessment of prices. Here, GSA simply awarded contracts to the proposals that had a reasonable price and an exceptional rating. The award decision established the rates below or above a statistical threshold but did not establish the actual price to the government of each quotation. For instance, GSA found that TCG was within the statistical range of reasonableness because 58 percent of its rates were within one deviation of the mean. But the agency never considered the actual cost of the other 42 percent of TCG’s rates.
Moreover, GAO reasoned, even if the ratings based on solely on the number of reasonable rates was a valid method for assessing price, GSA had still not considered whether the highest technically rated quotations were worth the price premium as compared to lower-rated quotations with more favorable prices.
All in all, GAO sustained FreeAlliance and Mobomo’s protests but denied Radus’s protest. GAO recommended that GSA reevaluate proposals and make a new award decision.
FreeAlliance is represented by Daniel J. Strouse, Davide Cohen, and John J. O’Brien of Cordatis LLP. Radus is represented by William Weisberg of the Law Office of William Weisberg. Mobomo is represented by Jeremy C. Scholtes, C. Peter Dungan, and Roger V. Abbott of Miles Stockbridge P.C. Intervenor TCG is represented by Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Roy Morris, and Ithi Joshi of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC. The agency is represented by Shirin E. Ahlhauser and Nathan C. Guerrero of the General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards and Jonathan L. Kang participated in the preparation of the decision.
