The protester argued its proposal should have received strengths for its comprehensive training plan and its counterthreat analytical technique. GAO said you don’t get extra credit for explaining how you plan to meet the requirements.
Patriot Group International, Inc., GAO B-422969.2; B-422969.3
- Protest – The Air Force issued a solicitation for services in support of counterdrug, counter-organized crime, and counterterrorism missions conducted by federal law enforcement agencies. The protester argued the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and conducted misleading discussions.
- Technical Evaluation –
- Comprehensive Training: The protester asserted its proposal should have received a strength for its well-organized, cost-effective training compared to the incumbent. GAO found that such training fit squarely in the solicitation requirement to ensure that personnel are sufficiently trained and fully qualified. By definition, providing something necessary does not exceed the requirement.
- Counterthreat Analytical Technique: The protester next claimed it deserved a strength for its counterthreat finance analytical technique that enabled it to respond to adversarial financial networks with precision and efficiency. GAO ruled that the protester failed to demonstrate how its proposal merited a strength. The protester merely presented its strategy for meeting the requirements, not how it rose to the solicitation’s definition of a strength.
- Performance Issues: The protester averred the agency failed to consider the “multiple performance failures” on the incumbent contract. The agency responded, and GAO agreed, that the solicitation did not contemplate the evaluation of an offeror’s past performance. Thus, there was no obligation to assign a weakness for the incumbent’s proposal.
- Discussions – The protester argued the agency engaged in misleading discussions when it issued a pricing interchange notice to the protester concerning its low direct labor rates. The protester alleged its initial price was realistic when comparing it to other offerors’ proposed prices. The agency responded that the protester was conflating the agency’s evaluated price and professional compensation analyses. The price interchange notice provided that the “total professional compensation including direct labor for some positions appears to be unrealistically low.” This concerned the agency that it may fail to comply with FAR provision 52.222-46. Because the protester failed to demonstrate that this evaluation concern was unrealistic or inaccurate, GAO denied the protest.
The protester was represented by Ryan C. Bradel, P. Tyson Marx, Michael E. Hatch, Nicholas L. Perry, and Brian S. Yu of Ward & Berry, PLLC. The intervenor was represented by Jason A. Carey, Jennifer K. Bentley, Moushmi Patil, and Catherine K. Wettach of Covington & Burling LLP. The agency was represented by Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Beatrice K. Foster, and Warner J. Worthan of the Air Force. Jacob M. Talcott and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor