Castleski | Shutterstock

Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied in part and dismissed in part. The agency eliminated the protester from the competition finding that its proposal failed to demonstrate experience under various technical sub-elements. The protester claimed that the agency had ignored portions of its proposal that demonstrated the required experience under those sub-elements. For some of the sub-elements, GAO found that the portions of the proposal the agency allegedly ignored did not describe the protester’s experience in adequate detail. For other sub-elements, GAO simply dismissed the protester’s arguments, finding that the protester had not sufficiently responded to the agency’s arguments in the comments on the agency report. This lack of response, GAO reasoned, amounted to abandonment of these protest arguments.

The Air Force issued a solicitation for an award of an IDIQ contract to provide IT services. The solicitation provided for a tiered evaluation process. First, the Air Force determined whether offerors had capability maturity model integrations certification. If they had the certification, the agency would then evaluate technical experience using a self-scoring sheet and technical narratives prepared by the offeror. If an offeror’s technical experience was acceptable, the agency would then evaluate the offeror’s past performance.

CRESTRAT JV, LLC submitted a proposal in response to the solicitation. The Air Force, however, found CRESTAT’s proposal technically unacceptable during the second tier of evaluation. Following its elimination from the competition, CRESTRAT protested.

CRESTRAT first argued that the agency’s evaluation under a risk management sub-element was unreasonable. The Air Force had found that CRESTRAT’s proposal did not demonstrate experience incorporating integrity and availability or any of the technical controls to prevent loss of data as required by the solicitation. CRESTRAT contended that the Air Force ignored portions of two of its technical narratives that addressed this requirement.

GAO was not persuaded by CRESTRAT’s argument. GAO noted that in one of the narratives that purportedly addressed this sub-element, CRESTRAT identified a brand-name solution and claimed to have utilized that solution to achieve certain results. This, GAO found, was not sufficient to demonstrate the claimed experience. In the other narrative CRESTRAT relied on, the company used some buzzwords like “authorization” and “accountability,” but it failed to describe the required experience using the required risk management principles and preventive technical controls.

CRESTRAT next argued that the agency failed to consider portions of its proposal that demonstrated experience under a data or system migration sub-element. But GAO dismissed this argument. The Air Force has provided a detailed response to these allegations in the agency report. CRESTRAT’s comments, however, did not substantively respond to the agency’s arguments; instead, it merely repeated the same arguments raised in the initial protest. When an agency provides a detailed response to the protester’s argument, and the protester fails to rebut and just restates earlier arguments, GAO will consider the argument abandoned.

CRESTRAT also challenged its evaluation under a modernization sub-element. Once again, however, CRESTRAT’s comments did not rebut the agency’s response to this protest ground. Rather, CRESTRAT simply repeated the same arguments it made in the initial protest. GAO dismissed this protest ground as abandoned.

CRESTRAT is represented by Janine S. Benton of J. Benton Law, PLLC and William K. Walker of Walker Reausaw. The agency is represented by Kevin P. Steins and Alexis Bernstein of the U.S. Air Force. GAO attorneys Evan C. Williams and Amy B. Pereira participated in the preparation of the decision.