Protest objecting to the agency’s evaluation of proposals is sustained. GAO found that the agency unreasonably assessed an Outstanding rating to the awardee’s management approach. GAO also determined that the agency had erred in not assessing a significant strength to the protester’s management approach. GAO further found that the agency erred in not reopening discussions with the protester. There was a reasonable likelihood that the protester had been prejudiced by these errors.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) issued a solicitation seeking various enterprise management information technology services. Five offerors, including TekSynap Corporation and Chenega Agile Real-Time Solutions, submitted proposals. NGA determined that TekSynap’s proposal was un-awardable because it was missing price information. NGA selected Chenega for award. TekSynap protested.
TekSynap first argued that NGA erred in only assessing Chenega a slight weakness for failing to meet a key personnel qualification. NGA determined that Chenega’s operations manager only met four out of the five qualifications specified in the solicitation. NGA assigned Chenega a slight weakness while finding that the company still merited an Outstanding rating under the solicitation’s management plan factor. TekSynap contended that the assignmentof a mere slight weakness was unreasonable, and, consequently, that Chenega’s Outstanding rating under the management plan factor was also unreasonable.
GAO agreed with TekSynap, fining that the record did not support the reasonableness of the slight weakness. Neither the evaluation record nor supplemental declarations from NGA explained how a key person who did not meet the solicitation’s requirements could pose only a slight risk of unsuccessful performance. The agency’s explanation only established that it did not consider the lack of experience a material failure. This was not enough.
Because the assessment of a slight weakness was unreasonable, GAO concluded that Chenega’s Outstanding rating under the management plan was also unreasonable. The RFP defined Outstanding as indicating an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. While the definition did not preclude award to a proposal with weaknesses, GAO did not see how proposing a key person that did not meet the mandatory qualifications demonstrates either an exceptional approach of understanding of the requirements.
TekSynap also challenged the evaluation of its own proposal, arguing that it should have received a significant strength under the management approach factor instead of a moderate strength. TekSynap reasoned that the evaluators had found that TekSynap’s management approach exceeded the specified performance requirement and significantly reduced the risk of unsuccessful performance, which met the solicitation’s definition of a significant strength.
Again, GAO agreed with TekSynap finding that NGA did not have a reasonable basis for assigning a moderate strength to TekSynap. In the contemporaneous record, the evaluators positively described numerous metrics using language similar to the solicitation’s definition of a significant strength. NGA submitted supplemental declarations stating that it had erroneously found that the TekSynap’s approach “significantly” reduced the risk of the unsuccessful performance. But GAO did not find this compelling, noting that nowhere in the contemporaneous record did NGA explain why it only viewed TekSynap’s proposal as moderately advantageous.
Next, TekSynap challenged the best value determination. During the best value analysis, NGA reopened discussions with Chenega. The agency, however, did not reopen discussions with TekSynap because it had determined that TekSynap’s proposal was un-awardable due to omitting pricing information. TekSynap argued that the agency should have re-opened discussions and given the TekSynap the opportunity to remedy is price proposal.
GAO opined that the because it had found that evaluation of Chenega’s and TekSynap’s proposal unreasonable, any decision not to engage in discussions with TekSynap simply because Chenega’s proposal was superior was unreasonable.
GAO concluded by finding that the TekSynap had been prejudiced the by the agency’s errors. But for those flaws, NGA may have assigned a lower rating to Chenega and higher rating to TekSynap under the management factor. And if NGA determined upon reevaluation that TekSynap’s proposal was superior to Chenega’s, it may reopen discussions with TekSynap.
TekSynap is represented by Elizabeth N. Jochum, Todd M. Garland, and Nora K. Brent of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. The intervenor, Chenega, is represented by William K. Walker of Walker Reausaw. The agency is represented by Bree A. Ermentrout and Graham Day of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. GAO attorneys Sarah T. Zaffina and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
