Protest challenging SSA’s assessment of proposals is sustained. The SSA had found that the protester’s higher-rated proposal was only somewhat superior to the awardee because the protester’s higher ratings were due to its experience and not necessarily to innovation. GAO rejected the SSA’s rationale. Experience and innovation were not listed as evaluation criteria in the solicitation. There was no nexus between what the SSA considered and the stated evaluation criteria. GAO also found that the SSA further botched the award decision by failing to adequately explain why they disagreed with some of the evaluators’ conclusions.
Background
DoD issued an RFQ seeking services to support the agency’s Office of Small Business Programs. The agency received quotations from, among others, Eccalon, LLC and Contracting Resources Group (CRG). The DoD’s evaluators rated Eccalon’s proposal highly, assigning thirteen strengths and no weaknesses. The evaluators were not as impressed with CRG’s proposal, which received zero strengths and two weaknesses.
The SSA, however, disagreed with evaluators regarding six of the strengths assessed to Eccalon, finding them duplicative. The SSA determined that while Eccalon proposed a superior solution, its approach was only “somewhat superior” to CRG’s because Eccalon’s advantage was due to experience and not necessarily to innovation. The SSA awarded the contract to CRG, finding that Eccalon’s somewhat superior approach did not warrant its $20 million price premium. Eccalon protested
Legal Analysis
- SSA’s Assessment of Eccalon Didn’t Conform to Evaluation Criteria – Eccalon argued that given the strengths assessed to its own proposal and the weaknesses assessed to CRG, the SSA erred in only finding Eccalon’s approach somewhat superior. GAO agreed. The SSA found Eccalon only somewhat superior due to the company’s experience and not necessarily its innovation. But the RFQ neither stated nor implied that an approach would be penalized if it was based on experience rather than innovation. The criteria valued understanding, practicality, feasibility, and reliability. The extent a vendor could demonstrate those traits, a decision to downgrade it for lack of innovation raised a consideration not reasonably encompassed by the stated criteria. There was no clear nexus between the stated criteria and what the SSA evaluated.
- SSA Ignored Concerns With CRG’s Proposal – The evaluators expressed concern that CRG lacked understanding of the RFQ’s cybersecurity requirement. The SSA disagreed with the evaluators believing this was only a minor issue. GAO found that the SSA had not adequately explained his disagreement with the evaluators’ conclusions. The record did not demonstrate that the SSA had a reasonable basis for disagreeing with the evaluators.
- SSA Unreasonably Downgraded Eccalon under Management Factor – The SSA downgraded Eccalon under the management factor for a low level of effort during the base year. GAO determined that the record did not support the SSA’s decision. The record did not show whether the SSA considered the qualifications of Eccalon’s staff and whether they had the qualifications to meet the requirement despite working fewer hours.
Eccalon is represented by David S. Panzer and Michael E. Hatch of White Taylor of White Taylor & Preston LLP. The intervenor, CRG, is represented by Katherine B. Burrows, Jacqueline K. Unger, Patrick T. Rothwell, and Anna R. Wright of PilieroMazza PLLC. The agency is represented by Stephen Piel of the Department of Defense. GAO attorneys Jacob M. Talcott and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
