The agency penalized the protester for not demonstrating an understanding of the PWS. The protester argued the RFP had not explicitly required offerors to demonstrate an understanding of the PWS, so the agency applied unstated criteria. GAO noted that an agency may properly consider matters not identified in the RFP, so long as they are encompassed by the stated criteria. Here, the RFP required offerors to demonstrate they could take on the required workload. Understanding the PWS was related to successfully performing the required work.
DGG RE Investments, LLC, GAO B-420905.2, B-420905.3
Background
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) posted an RPF seeking services for the agency’s rural loan portfolio. DGG RE Investments submitted a proposal. But USDA found DGG’s proposal unacceptable. DGG had received an unacceptable rating under a transition plan subfactor. DGG protested.
Analysis
Holistic Evaluation
DGG contended that USDA could’ve resolved it transition plan concerns by considering information in other portions of DGG’s technical volume. But GAO found the agency had no duty to consider other parts of the technical proposal. An agency is not required to piece together an offeror’s approach from different proposal sections. In fact, in this case, the RFP required that an offeror’s proposal separately address each of the technical subfactors. Thus, it would have been improper for USDA to consider other parts of the proposal while evaluating the transition plan.
Lack of Detail
DGG further alleged that the agency’s concerns with its transition plan were unjustified. DGG believed its approach satisfied the RFP’s requirements. GAO found that USDA’s concerns with DGG’s transition plan were warranted. USDA thought DGG’s plan lacked detail. GAO agreed. DGG had summarily stated it had processes in place and had provided o detail on how it planned to use its capabilities and systems in transition.
Unstated Criteria
DGG maintained USDA applied unstated criteria in evaluating its transition plan. USDA penalized DGG plan’s for not demonstrating an understanding of the PWS or the USDA handbook. DGG argued that the nothing the RFP statied that working within the guidelines of the PWS and handbook were important.
But an agency may properly take into account matters that are not identified but logically encompassed by the stated criteria. Here, the RFP required transition plans to demonstrate that offerors could take on the workload and had a clear path for transitioning the contract. An offeror’s understanding of the PWS and agency guidelines relate to a demonstration of successful transition. USDA properly considered the DGG’s understanding of the PWS in assessing its transition plan.
DGG is represented by Matthew T. Schoonover, Matthew P. Moriarty, John M. Mattox II, Ian P. Patterson and Timothy J. Laughlin of Schoonover & Moriarity LLP. The agency is represented by the Department of Agriculture. GAO attorneys Nathaniel S. Canfield and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
