Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation and cost realism analysis is denied. The protester argued that the one weakness assigned to its technical proposal was unreasonable. GAO agreed, but it also found that the protester had not been prejudiced by the weakness. Even without the weakness, the protester was unable to show that its proposal merited a higher, outstanding rating. The protester also alleged that the cost/price realism evaluation was flawed because the agency evaluated costs using documents that were not specifically enumerated in the RFP. But the RFP did not limit the agency’s evaluation to any category of documents.
The Army issued an RFP for a task order to provide systems engineering and technical assistance services. Four offerors, including NCI Information Systems and AECOM Management Services, responded to the RFP. AECOM and NCI received identical adjectival ratings, but NCI’s price was about .5 percent higher than AECOM’s. Given its slightly lower price, the Army determined that AECOM represented the best value. NCI protested.
NCI first argued that the Army erred in assigning a lone weakness to NCI under the technical factor. GAO agreed with NCI. The Army had assigned a weakness because it believed NCI had provided insufficient information concerning staff attrition during transition. GAO found, however, that NCI had addressed this risk, so the record did not support the weakness.
Although GAO had found that this weakness had been assigned in error, NCI had not been prejudiced by the error. NCI argued that without that lone weakness, its technical proposal had multiple strengths and no weaknesses. Thus, NCI argued, its technical proposal should have been rated outstanding instead of the good rating it received. But NCI failed to offer any substantive support for this argument. In addition to multiple strengths, a proposal only deserved an outstanding rating if it indicated an exceptional approach. The Army specifically found the NCI’s approach was thorough but not exceptional. NCI never refuted this finding. It  could not show that it deserved a better rating without the weakness and thus could not show that it would have a substantial chance of receiving award without the weakness.
Next, NCI argued that the Army unreasonably determined that two of AECOM’s indirect rates were realistic. The RFP instructed offerors to provide “at least one” of four types of documents to support their proposed indirect rates. AECOM provided one of the documents on the list and some other information that was not on the list. NCI argued that the one document from the list that AECOM provided did not support it rates. NCI also implicitly argued that the Army should not have assessed realism using the documents other than the ones enumerated in the RFP.
But GAO found that the plain language of the RFP did not limit supporting documentation, as NCI argued, but rather required that offerors submit at least one of a category of documents. Even if the one enumerated document that AECOM submitted did not support its indirect rates, it was not improper for the Army to consider other documents that could support the rates.
Finally, NCI argued the best value determination was unsupported by the record and devoid of consideration of the evaluated differences between proposals. But the GAO found the contracting officer reviewed the underlying evaluation, considered the qualitative value of proposals, reasonably found them to be technically equal, and properly used total evaluated cost as a basis for award.
NCI is represented by David Cohen of Cordatis LLP. The intervenor, AECOM, is represented by Jonathan D. Shaffer, Todd M. Garland, and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. The Agency is represented by Wade L. Brown and Dylan C. Bush of U.S. Army Materiel Command. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
