Protest challenging the agency’s technical and past performance evaluations is denied. The protester alleged the agency botched the technical evaluation because it did not infer that proposed staff had experience required by the solicitation. GAO, however, found that the protester had an affirmative duty to demonstrate that experience. The protester contended that it should have received more credit for use of incumbent staff. But GAO noted that the protester had already received a significant strength for proposing incumbent staff. Additionally, although it had been assessed the highest-possible excellent rating under the past performance factor, the protester argued it should have been rated higher. GAO held that a protester who claims its proposal deserved a higher rating that the highest rating available fails to state a valid protest ground.
The National Institute of Health (NIH) issued a solicitation seeking communications support services. Hendall, Inc. and IQ Solutions, Inc. submitted proposals. Both offerors had highly rated proposals, but IQ Solutions’ price was slightly lower. NIH selected IQ Solutions for award. Hendall protested challenging various aspects of NIH’s evaluation.
Hendall first objected to a weakness assigned to its proposal for a requirement to support a project involving information sharing through voice activated devices. Hendall claimed that while it did not explicitly state that its proposed staff had the requisite experience, NIH erred in inferring that he did not.
GAO noted that the solicitation required offerors to demonstrate the availability of experienced, qualified staff. The statement of work contained a list of anticipated projects , including a project to share information on voice activated devices. NIH reasonably found that Hendall had not sufficiently explained how it would meet a specific solicitation requirement. While Hendall maintained that its proposed staff had the requisite experience, an offeror has the responsibility to submit a well-written proposal that demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements. An offeror that does not affirmatively demonstrate the merits of its proposal risks rejection.
Next, Hendall contended that it should have received a significant benefit for its proposed use of incumbent staff. But GAO found no reason to question the evaluation. NIH had assessed Hendall a significant strength for its use of incumbent staff. There was no reason that Hendall should receive even more credit for this aspect of its proposal.
Hendall also contended that NIH erred by not considering the risks posed by IQ Solutions’ low labor rates. GAO noted that this amounted to an argument about NIH’s failure to perform a price realism analysis. The solicitation, however, contemplated a fixed-price contract and did not advise offerors that NIH would assess price realism. Hendall argued that because it had questioned NIH’s failure to consider IQ Solutions’ rates, not price, it was not making a price realism argument. But GAO noted this distinction was inapposite given that Hendall’s argument focused on the agency’s alleged failure to consider technical risks indicated by the IQ Solutions’ low rates.
Hendall further argued that although it had received an excellent past performance rating, it should have received an even higher rating. GAO rejected this argument, reasoning that when a protester complains that its proposal should have received a higher rating than the highest rating available, it fails to state a valid basis of protest.
Finally, Hendall argued NIH overrated the relevance of three of IQ Solutions’ past performance efforts. Hendall claimed that none of these efforts included work on Alzheimer’s disease, the core of the solicited work.
GAO found no reason to question NIH’s evaluation of IQ Solutions’ past performance. There was nothing in the solicitation that required NIH to penalize an offeror for not including work on Alzheimer’s disease. Rather, the solicitation stated that the past performance evaluation would be the product of subjective judgment. The solicitation further provided that NIH could consider related work that may include a list of several areas expertise of which Alzheimer’s disease was just one example.
Hendall is represented by Matthew T. Schoonover, John M. Mattox II, and Haley E. Claxton of Koprince Law, LLC. The intervenor, IQ Solutions, is represented by John E. Jensen, Meghan D. Doherty, and Robert C. Starling of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The agency is represented by Christine Simpson of the Department of Health and Human Services,. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
