If You Allege Misleading Discussions, Be Sure to Provide GAO with the Actual Discussion Questions

The protester said the agency held misleading discussions. GAO found the argument fundamentally flawed. The protester had not provided examples of the allegedly misleading discussion questions. Without examples of the questions, GAO could not tell whether they were misleading. GAO will not rely on an offeror’s own representation of the contents of a question. The protest was dismissed.

Chugach Logistics-Facility Services JV, LLC, GAO B-421351

Background

Space Force posted a solicitation seeking base operation services at Ascension Island in the South Atlantic. Chugach Logistics and Yang Enterprises submitted proposals. Space Force awarded the contract to Yang. Chugach protested.

Analysis

Technical Evaluation

Chugach alleged the agency botched the technical evaluation. Chugach didn’t have access to Yang’s proposal. Nevertheless, Chugach argued in light of the differences between prices, Yang must have proposed an insufficient or unqualified workforce.

GAO dismissed this argument as speculative. Chugach had not provided any evidence to support it claims about Yang’s staff. The solicitation did not require the agency to assess price realism. There was nothing inherently objectionable about Yang’s low price.

Past Performance

Chugach claimed the agency didn’t consider Yang’s adverse past performance. GAO again found this argument was based on conjecture. Chugach provided no evidence to support its claim. Chugach didn’t even know Yang’s past performance rating; it had not been provided during debriefing.

Misleading Discussions

Chugach contended the agency engaged in misleading discussions, which caused the Chugach to submit a higher-priced, less competitive proposal. GAO rejected this argument because Chugach had not included copies of the discussions questions with its protest. GAO had no way to know if the question was benign or coercive. Chugach could not rely on its own interpretation of the questions without providing them.

Chugach is represented by Scott R. Williamson and Daniel R. Williamson of Williamson Law Group. The intervenor, Yang, is represented by Damien C. Specht, James A. Tucker, and Victoria Dalcourt Angle of Morrison &  Foerster LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Frank Yoon, Lawrence M. Anderson, and Jeffrey R. Clark of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Sarah T. Zaffina and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the decision.

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor