Protest challenging the agency’s source selection decision is denied. The protester alleged that in making the award decision, the agency gave undue weight to less important evaluation factors. GAO, however, found that the agency properly weighted the evaluation factors. The protester alleged that agency had unreasonably relied on the transitive property in making the award decision—e.g., Offeror 1 is superior to Offeror 2, and Offeror 2 is superior to Offeror 3, so Offeror 1 is superior to Offeror 3. But GAO opined that agencies may use a transitive analysis in evaluating proposals.
The U.S Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) posted a solicitation seeking information technology development, modernization, and enhancement services. The solicitation advised the PTO planned to award five IDIQ contracts, three to small businesses and two to large businesses. Award would be made to the highest technically rated proposals with fair and reasonable prices.
PTO received 24 proposals. After identifying the three highest rated small businesses, PTO conducted a comparative analysis of the large business proposals. PTO concluded that proposal from SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton were the highest rated highest rated large businesses with fair and reasonable prices. Salient CGRT, which had competed as a large business, protested.
Salient alleged that PTO’s source selection decision was inconsistent with the solicitation because it gave undue weight to less important factors. The solicitation provided that the PTO would consider the following factors in descending order of importance: (1) small business participation, (2) technical approach, (3) past performance, and (4) program management and staffing. Salient argued that PTO gave undue weight to SAIC’s higher ratings under the past performance and program management factors wile discounting Salient’s higher rating under the more important technical approach factor.
But GAO noted that SAIC had been rated more favorably under the most important small business participation factor. The agency could reasonably find that SAIC’s proposal to be higher rated than Salient’s where SAIC provided more benefit under the first, third and fourth factors, while Salient only provided more benefit under the second most important factor.
Next, Salient objected to PTO’s use of the transitive property in evaluating proposals. PTO had used SAIC’s proposal as a control proposal. The agency had found that SAIC’s proposal was higher rated than Salient’s but lower rated than Booz Allen. Applying the transitive property, PTO concluded that Booz Allen’s proposal was therefore superior to Salient’s. But Salient argued that the PTO should have made a head-to-head comparison of Salient’s and Booz Allen’s proposals.
GAO rejected the argument reasoning that an indirect comparison of proposals is acceptable. A transitive analysis of evaluated proposal is reasonable where the record shows the agency took into account all the advantages offered by the proposals. In this case, the agency had noted in its comparison of SAIC and Booz Allen’s proposals that Booz Allen had a variety of strengths under the technical approach that provided a significantly greater benefit. When it compared SAIC’s and Salient’s proposals, it found that Salient’s approach provided an overall technical benefit but not as significant as the benefit provided by Booz Allen. The PTO had reasonably surmised that Booz Allen’s approach was superior to Salient’s.
Salient is represented by Lawrence P. Block, Elizabeth G. Leavy, William T. Kirkwood, and Joshua R. Turner of Reed Smith LLP. Intervenor Booz Allen is represented by Gary J. Campbell, G. Matthew Koehl, and Lidiya Kurin of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. Intervenor RIVA Solutions is represented by Elizabeth Jochum, Todd M. Garland, and Nora K. Brent of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. Intervenor Steampunk, Inc. is represented by David S. Black, Gregory R. Hallmark, Amy L. Fuentes, and Kelsey M. Hayes of Holland & Knight LLP. Intervenor SAIC is represented by James J. McCullough, Michael H. Anstett, Anayansi Rodriguez, and Christopher H. Bell of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The agency is represented by Andrew Squire and Chieko M. Clarke of the Department of Commerce. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
