The protester asserted its “proven management approach” and positive CPARS ratings should have translated to a higher rating in the management approach subfactor. GAO found these arguments were essentially an appeal to incumbency. While some past performance information cannot be ignored, prior GAO decisions dictated that the agency was not obligated to consider incumbent performance in technical proposals.
Patrona Corporation, GAO B-423282
- Protest – The protester challenged the award of a task order for nuclear submarine maintenance support services. The protester objected to the agency’s evaluation of past performance and technical factors.
- Technical Approach – Offerors had to respond to four sample problems. The agency would then evaluate how the offerors’ responses demonstrated understanding, capability and experience. The protester argued the agency should have awarded additional strengths since the protester “repeatedly went above and beyond specified performance requirements.” GAO rejected the argument. Whether a proposal exceeds requirements of a solicitation is a matter within the agency’s discretion.
- Management Approach – The protester argued its “proven management approach…warranted a higher rating than Acceptable.” Furthermore, it claimed the positive ratings it received on its Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) assessment should have translated to an “outstanding” rating under the management approach subfactor. GAO concluded the protester was essentially urging for a higher rating based on its incumbency. While some past performance information cannot be ignored, GAO found based on prior decisions that this specifically did not extend to technical proposals. The agency was not obligated to consider incumbent performance.
- Personnel Approach – The protester claimed the agency failed to evaluate its staffing plan and key personnel in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. First, it argued the agency failed to consider qualifications information for non-key personnel in its staffing plan. Second, it contended the agency did not give sufficient credit for the qualifications of the key personnel it proposed.
- Staffing Plan: The parties disagreed whether the solicitation contemplated the assessment of individual qualifications for non-key personnel. The protester claimed it did while the agency claimed it did not. If it did, the protester reasoned it would have received a higher rating due to the “qualified and experienced” individuals in its staffing plan. GAO sided with the agency. While the RFP instructed offerors to submit a staffing plan using the format provided. This format did not include a column for the input of qualifications for non-key personnel. Furthermore, the solicitation clearly stated that “resumes submitted for Non-Key Personnel will not be evaluated.”
- Key Personnel: The protester asserted it should have received a strength because all nine of its key personnel met or exceeded solicitation requirements. GAO stated the record showed that the agency was aware of the benefits and shortcomings presented by the protester’s key personnel. It therefore denied the protest.
The protester was represented by Ambika J. Biggs, William L. Walsh, Jr., and Allison P. Klena of Hirschler Fleischer, P.C. The agency was represented by Todd W. Muse and Denny Phane of the Navy. Thomas J. Warren and Alexander O. Levine of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
