Protest challenging agency’s technical and price evaluations is denied. The protester alleged that agency applied unstated criteria when assessing a risk to its proposed level of effort. GAO found that the agency reasonably evaluated level of effort as part of assessing vendors’ understanding of the requirements. The protester alleged the agency disparately evaluated proposals, assigning a benefit to the awardee’s management approach that it should have also assigned to the protester. But the vendors’ management approaches were not similar so the agency did not disparately evaluate them. The protester asserted that the price reasonableness evaluation was flawed because the agency compared prices to the average of proposed prices even though one vendor’s price was an outlier, which skewed the average. GAO found that the price comparison was within the agency’s discretion.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued an RFQ to certain categories of GSA FSS contracts. The RFQ sought program analysis and strategic support services and contemplated a single award blanket purchase agreement.
Four vendors, including Guidehouse LLP and Grant Thornton Public Sector LLC, submitted quotes. TSA selected Grant Thornton for award, finding that its proposal presented notable benefits, a superior approach, and the best overall value. Although Grant Thornton’s prices was significantly higher than Guidehouse’s, TSA reasoned that Grant Thornton’s proposed rates were less than its GSA rates and the government estimate and represented less risk to the government. Guidehouse protested the award.
Guidehouse argued that TSA unreasonably assigned a risk to its proposal under the technical factor. TSA found that Guidehouse had underestimated the level of effort associated with a technical scenario. Guidehouse alleged the risk was based on unstated criteria in that the RFQ had not stated that TSA would evaluate proposed labor categories and hours for the scenario; rather, offerors were free to propose their own level of effort.
GAO, however, found no basis to question the assessment of a risk. The RFQ provided that vendors were free to propose unique technical approaches with their own level effort. But a vendor’s proposed labor categories and hours were inherently part of the approach contemplated by the RFQ, and the extent to which Guidehouse could properly meet the scope of service was, given the company’s low labor estimate, properly questioned by the agency.
Guidehouse also asserted that TSA engaged is disparate treatment by assessing a benefit to Grant Thornton’s management approach while not giving a similar benefit to Guidehouse. But Grant Thornton’s and Guidehouse’s proposals were not the same. Grant Thornton proposed task tracking and a controlling methodology. The company specifically described how its processes would be used under the task order and how they would provide the agency with high quality program and project management. Guidehouse’s proposal, on the other hand, did not provide the same level of detail and comprehensive explanation.
Next, Guidehouse objected to the price reasonableness evaluation. TSA had assessed reasonableness by averaging prices and then comparing individual prices to the average. Guidehouse alleged this was flawed because one of the proposed prices was an extreme outlier that skewed the average.
GAO noted that the manner and depth and an agency price analysis is committed to the discretion of the agency. Here, the price evaluation team had noted that each vendor had proposed different solutions, so prices were bound to be different. The price team evaluated the underlying information related to price and found that the prices were reasonable. While one offeror had a high price, its price was evaluated in the same manner as the other quotations and found to be fair and reasonable. There was nothing in the RFQ that precluded the agency from comparing prices or that required TSA to exclude high-priced proposals.
Guide further contended that TSA’s evaluation of labor rates deviated from the RFQ’s requirements. Specifically, Guidehouse argued that the TSA erred in using the GSA rates as a benchmark for reasonableness without further analysis.
GAO rejected this argument, reasoning that the RFQ advised that the TSA would compare quoted rates against each vendor’s GSA rates. Moreover, contrary to Guidehouse’s contentions, the record showed that the TSA did not strictly rely on the comparison to GSA rates. Rather, the agency also compared rates to the government estimate and to a mean based on all quotations.
Guidehouse alleged that Grant Thornton should have been ineligible for award because the labor categories in its GSA schedule were not comparable to the RFQ’s requirements. Some of Grant Thornton’s labor categories had fewer years of minimum experience than those specified in the RFQ.
GAO, however, reasoned that the years of experience set forth in a vendor’s FSS contract are not a hard cap for assessing whether the labor category is within the scope of the solicitation. An agency has discretion to determine whether a vendor’s quoted labor rates meet the requirements of the solicitation.
Guidehouse is represented by Brian G. Walsh, Samantha S. Lee, Moshe B. Broder, Sarah B. Hansen, Lindy C. Bathurst, and Adam R. Briscoe of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor, Grant Thornton, is represented by Alexander J. Brittan of the Brittan Law Group PLLC and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC. The agency is represented by Michael Kiffney, Christopher Reames and Thomas McGivern of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christian Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
