The protester argued the agency botched the assessment of corporate experience and misevaluated the awardee’s oral presentation. GAO found both arguments compelling.
Sparksoft Corporation, GAO B-421459 et al.
- Corporate Experience – The protester argued the agency had credited the awardee with experience the awardee hadn’t demonstrated. GAO agreed. The solicitation required offerors to demonstrate experience with six performance areas. The awardee had not demonstrated experience in four of the six areas. The awardee’s proposal didn’t even mention two of the performance areas.
- Oral Presentation – The protester contended the agency had recognized the awardee’s oral presentation was incomplete. But, the protester complained, the agency still assessed the awardee a high confidence rating for the presentation. GAO sided with the protester again. It turned out the SSA discounted the incompleteness of the awardee’s presentation due to a misunderstanding. The SSA mistakenly thought the presentation was incomplete because one of the agency’s questions had been unclear. In reality, the question had been fine. The awardee’s presentation had, in fact, been incomplete.
The protester, Sparksoft, is represented by Elizabeth N. Jochum, Samrath Barot, David L. Bodner, and Amanda DeLaPerriere of Blank Rome, LLP. The awardees, Softrams, is represented by Amy L. O’Sullivan, Zachary H. Schroeder, and David H. Favre III of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by David A. Lank of the Department of Health and Human Services. GAO attorneys David A. Edelstein and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
