The solicitation in this protest required offerors to record a video responding to a scenario. The agency found that the protester’s video unacceptable. The protester’s video, among other issues, didn’t include participation from the protester’s whole team. The protester objected, arguing that its team members had participated by making comments on a mural board. But GAO found that the mural board in the video was illegible. The agency reasonably found the video unacceptable.
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., GAO B-420535, B-420535.2
Background
The Defense Health Agency (DHA) posted an RFP seeking to award multiple IDIQ contracts for managed technology and organizational contract solutions. The RFP provided that offerors would be evaluated under a challenge scenario factor. For this factor, offerors had to prepare and record themselves in a “live session” responding to an agency-provided scenario requiring digital transformation. Offerosr had to provide three representatives live on the video with up to seven others appearing virtually. DHA would assess the quality of the proposed solution as well as how offerros arrived at the solution.
Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) submitted a proposal and the required challenge scenario video. DHA found BAH’s challenge scenario video unacceptable. DHA believed BAH’s solution focused too much on testing while testing a symptom of the scenario’s underlying problem. Additionally. DHA noted that BAHs solution was dominated by two team members without input from others, Moreover, BAH’s solution failed to move beyond the ideation stage, and did not discuss how technologies would be implemented. BAH protested objecting to the assessment under the challenge scenario factor.
Legal Analysis
GAO saw no basis to question the evaluation of BAH’s video. GAO concurred with the agency: BAH’s approach focused on narrow short-term results, such as testing, rather than underlying issues.
BAH argued that the agency erred in downgrading its approach for lack of input from other team m3embers. BAH contended that its video contained a mural board, and that the other team members participated by inserting notes on the board during the presentation. But GAO reasoned that even viewing the video in high-definition, most of the information on the board was too small to be legible. The solicitation specifically advised offerors their responsibility to clearly communicate the information they wanted to be evaluated. Presenting illegible information on a mural board did not satisfy this responsibility.
BAH is represented by Kristen E. Ittig, Mark D. Colley, Stuart W. Turner, Anna Dykema, and Nicole Williamson of Arnold & Porter LLP. Intervenor Capgemini Government Solutions is represented by H. Todd Whay of Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP. Intervenor BCG Federal Corporation is represented by Jennifer S. Zucker, Scott A. Schipma, Jeff M. Chiow, and Chirstopher M. O’Brien of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The agency is represented by Jason R. Smith and Michael C. Ahl of the Defense Health Agency. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
