Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is sustained in part. The agency had assigned a significant weakness to an earlier version of the awardee’s proposal for a high rate of employee turnover. In a revised proposal, the awardee removed any reference to its high turnover rate. As far as the agency was concerned, this removal of “verbiage” resolved the high turnover problem. GAO was unimpressed with the agency’s reasoning. A significant weakness does not just disappear because the offeror erased all references to the weakness. GAO sustained this portion of the protest. The protester also challenged other portions of the agency’s technical and past performance evolutions, but GAO denied those protest grounds.
The Navy awarded a contract to Tatitlek Technologies, Inc. to provide administrative and clerical support to the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. An unsuccessful offeror, Qi Tech, LLC, protested, challenging the Navy’s evaluation of Tatitlek’s proposal.
Qi Tech first alleged that the Navy erred in evaluating Tatitlek under the solicitation’s Employee Recruitment/Retention factor. The solicitation required offerors to provide retention metrics for personnel covered by the Service Contract Act. In an early version of its proposal, Tatitlek, the incumbent, stated that it had a 32% turnover rate for SCA personnel on the incumbent contract. The Navy thought this rate was too high and assigned Tatitlek a significant weakness. This resulted in Tatitlek receiving a Marginal rating under the recruitment/retention factor.
Following discussions, Tatitlek submitted a revised proposal that no longer referenced the 32% turnover rate on the revised contract. Instead of the turnover rate for the incumbent contract, Tatitlek averaged the turnover rate for all the SCA-covered contracts it had with the Naval Surface War Center. This resulted in a much lower—17%— turnover rate. The Navy found that the turnover rate was no longer a significant weakness because Tatitlek “removed all verbiage related to the . . . significant weakness.” Qi Tech argued that it was unreasonable for the Navy to simply ignore Tatitlek’s turnover rate on the incumbent contract just because it was no longer mentioned in the proposal.
GAO agreed with Qi Tech. Tatitlek’s turnover rate on the incumbent contract was known to the Navy, and it was clear the agency considered that rate relevant to the evaluation. Indeed, the Navy had initially assigned a significant weakness for the 32% rate. What’s more, the turnover rate was not disputed. There was no evidence that Tatitlek had removed the rate from its proposal because it was inaccurate; rather, it was removed because it was prejudicial. In fact, given that the turnover rate was historical data, it could not have changed in the time it took to Tatitlek to revise its proposal. GAO concluded that it was unreasonable for the Navy to consider this significant weakness resolved simply because Tatitlek had obscured a negative retention metric in its revised proposal.
Qi Tech also contended that a strength assigned to Tatitlek under the solicitation’s workforce factor was unwarranted, and that a weakness assigned under that factor should have been a significant weakness. GAO did not accept either of these arguments. As to the strength, GAO found that Qi Tech simply disagreed with the agency’s judgment regarding the weight given to this aspect of the Tatitlek’s proposal. Likewise, with regard to the weakness, Qi Tech simply disagreed with the Navy’s judgment concerning the risk represented by this weakness.
Qi Tech further contended that the Navy unreasonably assigned Tatitlek a substantial confidence rating under the past performance factor. Under the solicitation, a substantial confidence was only warranted if the Navy had a high expectation of that the offeror would successfully perform the required effort. Qi Tech contended that because Tatitlek only had satisfactory or very good CPARS on its past performance references, the Navy could not have a high expectation of successful performance.
But GAO reasoned that Tatitlek’s CPARS indicated the company had met or exceeded contract requirements in all its past performance references. There is no requirement, as Qi Tech apparently suggested, that an offeror’s past performance must be exceptional—i.e., exceed contract requirements—in order to warrant a substantial confidence rating.
Qi Tech is represented by John R. Tolle and H. Todd Whay of Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP. The intervenor, Tatitlek, is represented by Richard B. Oliver and J. Matthew Carter of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The agency is represented by Candice A. Thomas of the U.S. Navy. GAO attorneys Louis A. Chiarella and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
