Protests challenging agency’s technical, price reasonableness, and past performance evaluations as well as the best value tradeoff are denied. The agency reasonably found that one protester’s technical approach was “piecemeal” instead of “holistic” and thus did not merit a strength. Additionally, the agency did not engage in disparate treatment when it failed to assign strengths to portions of the protesters’ approach that differed significantly from the awardee’s. Also, although the awardee’s price exceeded the government’s estimate, the agency’s conclusion that it was still within a reasonable range was unobjectionable. Finally, while the protester had one of the lowest past performance score and the highest price, past performance and price were the least important evaluation factors. The agency’s best value decision was justified by the awardee’s significantly higher technical rating.
The Department of Veterans Affairs awarded a task order for IT services to Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH). One of the losing bidders protested the award. GAO sustained the protest finding the VA had improperly awarded BAH a strength. The VA re-evaluated proposals. Out of six offers received, the VA determined that BAH had the highest technical rating and the highest price. Nevertheless, the VA determined BAH offered the best value and thus re-awarded the contract to BAH. This time, three disappointed bidders—Accenture Federal Services, Cognosante MVH, and SRA International—protested, challenging the technical, price reasonableness, and past performance evaluations as well as the best value tradeoff.
Accenture argued that the VA’s technical evaluation was flawed because it failed to credit Accenture’s proposed portal with a strength. But the VA had found Accenture’s portal approach to be “piecemeal” and “high level” rather than consolidated and “holistic.” GAO agreed, finding that mentions of the portal were spread throughout Accenture’s proposal, which resulted in a “diffuse presentation.” Indeed, GAO continued, when Accenture’s portal discussions was presented in the form of a graphic (someone must have prepared a pie chart), it constituted only a small part of Accenture’s technical approach. The VA’s decision to not award a strength was reasonable.
SRA also argued that its technical proposal deserved strengths, but GAO found no basis to conclude that the VA’s analysis of SRA was flawed. SRA claimed the VA overlooked important portions of its proposal, yet, GAO reasoned, SRA did not explain how this was improper. SRA also asserted that its experience on another contract was “unique and directly relevant” and thus merited a strength. GAO, however, found that SRA, again, did not adequately explain why the VA’s analysis was improper in this instance.
Next, Accenture, still vexed about the its proposed portal, argued that the VA disparately evaluated technical proposal. Specifically, Accenture claimed, its portal was equal in merit to BAH’s and therefore should have received a strength like BAH’s. But GAO found Accenture’s portal distinct from BAH’s. Accenture’s portal was supposed to reside in VA’s network while BAH’s would not. Accenture had failed to adequately address how the portal would be integrated into VA’s network and did not clearly explain its functionality. BAH’s description, on the other hand, clearly explained the portal’s functionality. Given the difference between Accenture’s and BAH’s proposals, GAO found the VA did not evaluate them disparately.
Cognosante also complained that the VA disparately evaluated its portal. As part of the its response to the protests, the VA provided a declaration from one of the evaluators, who stated that Cognosante’s portal did not deserve a strength because the proposal lacked clarity concerning the functionality of the portal. Although it was a post-protest explanation, GAO found the declaration compelling. The detail in the declaration firmly established that the VA fully considered Cognosante’s proposal. Cognosante failed to adequately demonstrate that this aspect of its proposal was similar to BAH’s or that the evaluation was unreasonable. Given the subjective nature of the issues here, GAO concluded that it was within VA’s discretion to award a strength to BAH and not award one to Cognosante.
Cognosante then argued that the VA’s price reasonableness evaluation was defective because the agency did not sufficiently consider the magnitude of BAH’s price premium. But GAO found that the VA conducted an adequate reasonableness analysis by comparing offerors’ prices to each other and the awardee’s price to the government estimate. Although BAH’s price exceeded the estimate, the VA’s conclusion that the price was still within a reasonable range of the estimate was unobjectionable.
Accenture then challenged the VA’s past performance evaluation, arguing that the VA failed to look behind offerors’ numerical past performance ratings. The solicitation, however, provided that various past performance factors would be reduced to a numerical score. Other than this mechanical calculation, the solicitation did not contemplate any further analysis of past performance. The VA’s evaluation of past performance was consistent with the solicitation.
Finally, all three protesters challenged the best value tradeoff, contending that the VA failed to consider declines in BAH’s past performance scores as part of the best value analysis. But, GAO reasoned, BAH’s rating under the most important technical rating was significantly higher than all the other offerors. Although BAH’s past performance score was in the bottom half of all offerors, past performance was less important than the technical factor. What’s more, while BAH’s price was the highest, price was the least important factors. The protesters may have disagreed with the best value tradeoff, but GAO found that it was justified and adequately documented.
Accenture is represented by James Andrew Jackson, Cherie J. Owen, Alexander M. Yabroff, Sara Lynn Rafferty, and Ryan P. McGovern of Jones Day. Cognosante is represented by Alexander B. Ginsberg, Meghan D. Doherty, Kevin Massoudi, and Toghrul M. Shukurlu of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. SRA is represented by Michael F. Mason, Stacy M. Hadeka, Katherine L. Morga, and Adilene Rosales, of Hogan Lovells US LLP. Intervenor BHA is represented by Mark D. Colley, Kristen E. Ittig, Stuart W. Turner, Sonia Tabriz, and Michael E. Samuels of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The agency is represented by Frank V. DiNicola, Desiree A. DiCorcia, and Tara Nash of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Stephanie B. Magnell, and Amy B. Pereira participated in the preparation of the decision.
