canbedone | Shutterstock

Protest challenging several aspects of agency’s technical evaluation is denied. The protester alleged that the agency failed to assign 17 strengths to aspects of its proposal that exceeded solicitation requirements. GAO, however, found that merely exceeding solicitation requirements is not enough to warrant strengths. To receive a strength, a proposal must exceed requirements in a way that benefits the agency. Here, GAO found that none of the alleged 17 strengths actually benefitted the agency. The protester also challenged various weaknesses assigned to its proposal, but GAO found the weaknesses were warranted. Additionally, the protester alleged the agency’s cost realism analysis was flawed. GAO reasoned that given the weaknesses in its proposal, the protester had not been prejudiced by any flaws in the cost realism evaluation.

DoD’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) issued a solicitation seeking services to support the agency’s Advanced Research Center. The awardee would provide infrastructure, cybersecurity engineering, and management to support ballistic missile defense system and flight test activities.

Kord Technologies, Inc. submitted a proposal in response to the solicitation. MDA assessed five weaknesses to Kord’s technical approach, assigning the company Marginal ratings under two of the technical subfactors. Based on its ratings, Kord was excluded from the competitive range. Kord protested.

Kord contended that MDA failed to assess numerous strengths to its proposal. Kord noted that the solicitation defined a strength as an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that exceeds performance requirements. Kord argued that MDA did not assess 17 unique strengths to its proposal that, if measured objectively, exceeded the solicitation requirements.

GAO noted that merely exceeding solicitation requirements is not enough to warrant a strength. A strength is not warranted unless the proposal exceeded solicitation requirement in a way that is beneficial to the agency. In this case, GAO found that MDA had reasonably found that Kord’s purported strengths in Kord’s proposal did not benefit the agency.

For instance, Kord alleged that its proposal deserved a strength under a schedule management subfactor for using industry best practices that exceeded the requirements listed in a section of the performance work statement. But GAO noted that the solicitation included a cross reference matrix that identified specific PWS paragraphs that offerors had to address under each subfactor. The PWS paragraph that Kord identified was not listed in the matrix for the schedule management subfactor. Thus, it was reasonable for MDA to determine that Kord’s proposal did not merit a strength since it concerned a PWS section that offerors were not required to address.

As another example, Kord alleged that it exceeded requirements by proposing test event certification and development of certification for data practices. GAO found that that MDA considered Kord’s approach to test and data practice certification and reasonably determined the proposal met the requirement but did not exceed them in a way that benefitted the agency.

Kord also argued that the work it had performed as the incumbent contractor was evidence that that government had already determined that its 17 alleged strengths would be advantageous to the government. In support of this argument, Kord relied on its CPARS. But GAO reasoned that the solicitation made clear that an offeror’s prior performance would be evaluated under the past performance factor, not the technical or program management factors.  What’s more, the solicitation stated that offerors should assume that the government had no prior knowledge of offerors’ experience and would base the evaluation on the information presented in the proposal. If Kord wanted MDA to consider the CPARS as part of the technical evaluation, it should have included the CPAPRs in the technical portion of its proposal.

Next, Kord challenged weaknesses assigned to its proposal. Kord received a weakness for proposing to develop a tool but not including any personnel in its proposal that possessed the skill to build that tool. Kord argued this weakness was unwarranted because the tool it proposed had been implemented on the incumbent contract.

But GAO found the weakness reasonable. Kord’s proposal did not state that the tool had already been developed. Moreover, Kord’s proposal did not include any of the software or database developers that would be required to build the proposed tool. Offerors bear the burden of submitting adequately written proposals. Based on what was actually included in Kord’s proposal, MDA reasonably assigned a weakness.

Kord also objected to a weakness it received for proposing low-skilled personnel to perform complex security technical implementation and incident response. GAO found that Kord’s protest only focused on the security technical implementation; the company had not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the agency’s concern with incident response was irrational.

Kord further argued that a weakness it had received for failing to propose software and database developers showed that MDA failed conduct meaningful discussions. But GAO found that this argument was untimely. Kord learned of this weakness during its debriefing. The company, however, only raised the discussions issues in a supplemental protest more than 10 days after the debriefing. Kord should have raised the discussions issue in its initial protest.

Kord also claimed that MDA’s cost realism analysis was flawed. Even if there was flaw in the cost analysis, however, GAO found that Kord had not been prejudiced.Kord was the only offeror to receive marginal and moderate risk ratings under the non-price factors and thus still would have been eliminated from the competitive range.

Finally, based on correspondence regarding internal reorganization at the agency, Kord asserted that the solicitation no longer reflected the agency’s needs. GAO found that Kord had not provided any evidence to support this claim.

Kord is represented by Robert J. Wagman Jr., Joshua R. Robichaud, and Ryan M. Eletto of Bracewell LLP. The agency is represented by Major Mark T. Robinson, Brian Chapuran, and Robert B. Neill of the Army. GAO attorneys John Sorrenti and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.