The protester claimed that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions about its proposal, which was rated as having significant weaknesses due to insufficient proposed labor hours. GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency issued an evaluation notice to the protester, but the protester chose to maintain its original proposal.
Brandan Enterprises, Inc., GAO, B-423385
- Meaningful Discussions – The protester, Brandan Enterprises, Inc.(BEI), contended that the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions about the identified significant weakness related to insufficient labor hours. According to GAO, discussions must guide offerors to areas needing revision, but do not require full disclosure of all evaluation criteria. The agency issued an evaluation notice to BEI, explicitly addressing labor hour concerns. BEI chose to maintain its original proposal without adjustments, leading GAO to determine that the agency’s conduct of discussions was adequate and did not mislead BEI.
- Assessment of Significant Weakness – The protester argued that the assessment of a significant weakness for insufficient staffing hours was unreasonable. BEI claimed it proposed more hours than required based on its understanding of workload and staffing needs. GAO found the evaluators’ judgment reasonable, noting that BEI’s proposal did not account for necessary pre-shift and post-shift tasks specified in the performance work statement (PWS). The agency relied on historical staffing data to establish baselines, and BEI’s failure to address these requirements resulted in a significant weakness assessment.
- Best-Value Tradeoff – In its assertions, the protester also claimed the agency’s source selection decision was flawed since it was based on a skewed technical evaluation. GAO held that since it found no basis to object to the evaluation, the protester’s derivative claim regarding the tradeoff decision lacked merit.
The protester is represented by Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., Joseph P. Loman, Esq., Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., and Antonio R. Franco, Esq., of Piliero Mazza PLLC. The intervenor, Quality Innovation, Inc., is represented by Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Charles F. Blanchard, Esq., of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The government is represented by Kenneth Gilliland, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., participated in the decision.
