The protester claimed the awardee received an unfair significant strength rating because it calculated its task capability using work days while the solicitation expected the calculation to take place over calendar days. GAO sustained, finding the awardee’s rating was unreasonable.
GOVCIO, LLC, GAO B-421290.6; B-421290.7; B-421290.8
Protest – The agency sought to acquire file conversion services. The protester challenged the agency’s technical evaluation, past performance evaluation, and the equality of meaningful discussions.
- Technical Evaluation
- Conversion Capability: The protester argued the agency did not distinguish between calendar days and workdays regarding daily conversion capabilities. To this end, the awardee received a significant strength because it calculated its daily rate of file conversion based on work days while the solicitation was calculated based on calendar days. GAO agreed with the protester, finding the evaluation of conversion capability unreasonable.
- Key Personnel: The protester maintained that the agency assigned strengths for the awardee’s advanced degrees while failing to award strengths for the protester’s significantly extra experience. GAO ruled that the offerors were not treated disparately, and the difference in the evaluation stemmed from the difference in proposals.
- Past Performance – The agency assigned the protester a neutral past performance rating. The protester claimed both of its references were relevant and that the neutral rating was the result of unstated evaluation criteria. The agency responded that its evaluation was reasonable and GAO agreed. The first reference did not include the performance of logistics similar to the effort contemplated by the solicitaiton. The second reference was only 29% of the government’s estimate.
- Discussions – The protester alleged the agency acted unfairly when it did not advise the protester during discussions that its past performance rating changed. GAO disagreed. Based on precedent, the agency was not required to engage in discussions to notify the protester that its rating changed. The protester also argued that the agency provided multiple opportunities for the awardee to reduce its price and did not do the same for the protester. GAO thought this was fine since the awardee’s price was $86M higher than the protester’s.
- Conclusion – GAO recommended the agency reevaluate the awardee’s conversion capability using similar metrics of either work days or calendar days and make a new award decision.
The protester was represented by James Y. Boland, Kyle T. McCollum, Lindsay M. Reed, and Kelly M. Boppe of Venable LLP; and Frank DiNicola of Winston & Strawn LLP. The intervenor was represented by Noah B. Bleicher, Moshe B. Broder, Aime J. Joo, Andrew L. Balland, and Sierra A. Paskins of Jenner & Block LLP. The agency was represented by John C. Huebl and Alexander Jonathan Brittin Jr. of Department of Veterans Affairs. Charmaine A. Stevenson, and John Sorrenti of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
