Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s and awardees quotes is denied. The protester objected to a significant weakness assigned to its proposal and strengths assigned to the awardee’s. GAO, however, found that these arguments amounted to disagreement with the agency’s evaluation conclusions. The protester also alleged that awardee violated the solicitation’s formatting requirements by boxing the text in its past performance volume and calling it a graphic so it could use smaller font in the volume. But the solicitation did not limit the use of graphics for which a smaller font size was permitted, so GAO could not conclude that the agency’s evaluation had been unreasonable.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) posted an RFQ for information and technology support services. Fourteen vendors, including RIVA Solutions, Inc. and Alpha Omega Integration, LLC submitted quotes. NOAA found that Alpha Omega’s proposal offered the best value. RIVA protested.
RIVA challenged a significant weakness assessed to its proposal under the management approach factor. NOAA assessed the weakness because it found RIVA’s staffing plan confusing. Moreover, NOAA was concerned that RIVA had proposed help desk staff in remote locations. RIVA argued that the RFQ lacked any requirement to provide offerors at a particular location.
But GAO noted that the performance work statement required contractors to provide help desk staff appropriate at each NOAA office to provide direct desktop support. This requirement referred to in-person assistance. RIVA’s other complaints about the weakness amounted to disagreement with the agency’s evaluation conclusions.
RIVA also objected to a significant strength assessed to Alpha Omega’s quote for the company’s understanding of cloud computing. RIVA contended that NOAA’s evaluation had focused too much on cloud migration at the expense of the RFQ’s actual requirements. If NOAA had properly evaluated quotes, RIVA argued, Alpha Omega would have been rated lower. GAO, however, found that RIVA had not explained why the evaluation was unreasonable. The argument reflected disagreement with the agency’s judgment but did not show why that judgment was unreasonable.
RIVA next contended that Alpha Omega’s proposal violated the solicitation’s formatting requirements. The RFQ required use of 12 point font but allowed 10 point font for charts tables and graphs. RIVA alleged that Alpha Omega had simply put a box around all the 10 point text in its past performance volume and called it a graphic to avoid the solicitation’s 12 point font requirement.
GAO noted that when a solicitation establishes font requirements, provides an exception to those requirements, and does not limit the content that may be included in those excepted portions, GAO will not sustain a protest based on the content of such tables and, graphs, or charts. In this case, the solicitation did not prohibit vendors from using tables in the past performance volume nor limit the content of tables, which allowed for smaller font. GAO could not conclude that NOAA had unreasonably determined that Alpha Omega’s proposal complied with the formatting requirements.
Lastly, RIVA object to the best value analysis, arguing that NOAA failed to provide a rational explanation for selection Alpha Omega’s higher-rated, higher-price quote. But the record showed that the SSA considered the underlying evaluation and provided a well-reasoned basis for the tradeoff that considered the advantages of the Alpha Omega’s quote.
RIVA is represented by Elizabeth N. Jochum and Todd M. Garland of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. The intervenor, Alpha Omega, is represented by Antonio R. Franco, Patrick T. Rothwell, and Jonathan I. Pomerance of PilierioMazza PLLC. The agency is represented by James Rhodes of the Department of Commerce. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
