The protester argued that its proposal was evaluated as technically unacceptable without just cause. It claimed that the agency overlooked key parts of its proposal that demonstrated an understanding of the required tasks. GAO found that the protester’s proposal lacked specificity and thus upheld the award.
FS Federal, LLC v. Department of the Army, GAO, B-423450.2
- Background – The Army sought communication planning and support services. It awarded the contract to the awardee at a bid of $12,818,454. The protester, FS Federal, filed a protest, arguing that its proposal was evaluated as technically unacceptable without just cause.
- Unacceptable Evaluation – FS Federal claimed its proposal was wrongly rated as unacceptable in key technical areas. However, the agency contended that the proposal lacked specific details about how it would fulfill critical requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). GAO noted that the RFP required clarity and comprehensive reasoning in proposals, rather than vague assertions. The agency’s conclusion about the proposal’s inadequacies was upheld, affirming that the protester failed to provide the necessary requisite detail.
- Lack of Specificity in Approach – Regarding communication product development, FS Federal argued its proposal outlined an adequate commitment to develop required communication playbooks and other products. However, the agency found the protester’s submission did not adequately detail how these products would be created or managed. GAO emphasized that the RFP obligated offerors to clearly explain their methodologies. The agency’s evaluation was justified.
The protester is represented by Claudia Savena, Esq., of her firm. The intervenor, Vistra Communications, LLC, is represented by Ambika J. Biggs, Esq., William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., and Allison P. Klena, Esq., of Hirschler Fleischer, P.C. The government is represented by Lieutenant Colonel Sean Zehtab, Robert B. Neill, Esq., Angela Fortier, Esq., and Joshua Reyes, Esq., of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Katherine S. Pearson, Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., participated in the decision.
