The protester argued the agency did not consider the "depth and breadth" of its past performance. It claimed the agency's evaluation process rewarded offerors who had less experience. COFC refused to find that the protester should be rewarded for its quantity of past experiences because this would impose a unstated evaluation criteria.
AcmeSolv, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 24-1282C
- Protest - The agency awarded a contract for cybersecurity services. The protester maintained the agency improperly took a purely "mathematical" and "quantitative" approach to its confidence ratings.
- Evaluation Approach - The protester cited the Source Selection Decision Document that noted the awardee received a High Confidence rating since two of the questionnaires rated their performance Exceptional and only one rated Satisfactory. The Individual Evaluation Worksheet then averaged the rating to High Confidence. The protester argued this did not consider the entire context of the past performance as required under FAR 15.305(a). COFC rejected the protester's argument and found the agency's evaluation reasonable. Furthermore, the protester's own suggested method of evaluation was a mathematical approach that disagreed with the Source Selection Authority's findings.
- Breadth and Depth - The protester asserted the agency did not consider the "depth and breadth" of its past performance information. It claimed it was unable to fairly compete for the contract because "the Agency's evaluation process inherently rewarded offerors who had less experience to evaluate." In other words, the protester claimed it should have received credit for its quantity of past performance references. COFC rejected this claim as this would impose an evaluation criterion not found in the solicitation.
The protester was represented by Brad W. English, Emily J. Chancey, Michael R. Pillsbury, Taylor R. Holt, and Hunter M. Drake. The agency was represented by Nelson Kuan, Brian M. Boynton, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Steven J. Gillingham of DOJ; and Adam Humphries of USDA. The defendant-intervenor was represented by Devon Elizabeth Hewitt.
-- Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor