When a solicitation provides for a best value-tradeoff, the agency is required to qualitatively assess proposals. While an agency need not document all of its assessment, there must be some evidence of discernment or an assessment of quality. Here, the solicitation called for a best-value tradeoff, but the agency essentially assessed proposals using a pass/fail checklist, and then it awarded the contract to the lowest-priced offeror. Needless to say, GAO did not think this was best practices for a best-value procurement.
AT&T Mobility LLC, GAO B-420494
Background
The U.,S. Secret Service issued a solicitation to Federal Supply Schedule contract holders seeking cellular communications services and equipment. The solicitation provided that the award would be made on a best-value tradeoff considering price and various non-price factors.
Three offerors submitted proposals. The agency found that only two offerors, AT&T and Verizon Wireless, submitted compliant proposals. After conducting exchanges with AT&T and Verizon, the Secret Service assigned both proposals satisfactory ratings under the non-price factors. The agency awarded the contract to Verizon, which had the cheaper proposal. AT&T protested.
Legal Analysis
Evaluation of Non-Price Factors
AT&T argued that the agency evaluated the non-price factors on an acceptable/unacceptable basis instead of performing a qualitative assessment required by the solicitation. As to the technical factor, AT&T noted that the evaluation relied on a pass/fail checklist. The Secret Service essentially argued that the solicitation allowed it to assess proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis to determine if they met the level of detail specified in the statement of work.
GAO rejected the agency’s argument. The review of proposals could not have been limited to a pass/fail checklist. Indeed, the solicitation required offerors to submit and the agency to assess detained narrative descriptions for many of the requirements. Moreover, the solicitation gave different weights to the evaluation factors. Absent a qualitative assessment, the weighting of the evaluation factors didn’t make sense.
AT&T also argued that the Secret Service assessed other non-price factors using a mechanical pass-fail methodology. GAO agreed. The evaluations under the transition factor and the corporate experiences factor were little more than statements that the offerors met the solicitation requirements. GAO found there was no evidence the Secret Service had qualitatively assessed proposals under these factors.
Source Selection Decision
AT&T contended that in selecting Verizon, the agency didn’t look behind the adjectival ratings and essentially made the award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis. The Secret Service conceded that it didn’t conduct a best-value tradeoff because it didn’t see any discriminators between proposals worth considering.
GAO rejected the agency’s argument. While an agency is not required to extensively document every consideration made in a source selection decision, it must explain the basis for its determination. Here, the record did not include any discussion of the underlying merits of proposals or why they were considered technically equivalent.
Price
AT&T contended that the price evaluation was flawed because the agency excluded pricing for the transition period and from certain optional CLINs in the price calculation. GAO noted that it was possible that AT&T had not been prejudiced by this error. But given the other problems with the evaluation, GAO refused to give the agency the benefit of the doubt. The agency improperly conducted a lowest-price, technically acceptable procurement. In light of this, GAO could not conclude that AT&T had not been harmed by the price evaluation error.
AT&T is represented by Jonathan M. Baker, Cherie J. Owen, James G. Peyster, Tyler S. Brown, and Issac D. Schables of Crowell & Moring LLP. The intervenor, Verizon, is represented by Kayleigh M. Scalzo, Andrew R. Guy, Anna M. Menzel, and Jennifer K. Bentley of Covington & Burling LLP. The agency is represented by Michael Noyes and Nicole S. Hutchinson of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
