The protester argued the agency failed to reconcile significant disparities between an initial evaluation of proposals and a reevaluation after corrective action. The protester had received more positive findings in the initial evaluation. But GAO determined that the agency had sufficiently explained the disparities. To wit: after the initial evaluation, the evaluators received training on how to better evaluate proposals and had stopped assessing strengths for merely meeting solicitation requirements.
FreeAlliance.com, LLC, GAO B-420000.3 et al.
Background
The Navy posted an RFP seeking information technology services. After evaluating proposals, the Navy awarded the contract to Perrygo Consulting Group. FreeAlliance.com, an unsuccessful offeror, protested.
In response to the protest, the Navy took corrective action to reevaluate. Following the reevaluation, the Navy again selected Perrygo. FreeAlliance filed a second protest. The Navy took corrective action again. After a second reevaluation, the Navy once again went with Perrygo. FreeAlliance filed a third protest.
Analysis
Reconciliation of Evaluations
FreeAlliance noted that in its initial evaluation it had received 25 positive and 14 negative findings. It didn’t revise its proposal, but in its last evaluation, it received nine positive and nine negative findings. Given the discrepancy, FreeAlliance reasoned, the evaluation had to be unreasonable.
The mere fact that a reevaluation of proposals after corrective action differs from the original evaluation is not evidence that the revaluation was unreasonable. Where, however, the evaluations are starkly different, the SSA must provide some kind of explanation as to why the results different.
Here, GAO found the SSA had documented a cogent reason for the differences. The SSA explained that between the initial and last evaluations, the evaluators had received additional training, which included a review of the definition of positive findings. It turned out that during the initial evaluation, the evaluators had assessed positive findings for aspects of proposals that simply met the solicitation’s requirements. The difference between the evaluations made sense.
Paraphrasing of Requirements
FreeAlliance objected to a negative finding it had received under the technical factor for simply restating some of the SOW requirements without providing sufficient additional information. But after comparing FreeAlliance’s proposal to the SOW and finding them remarkably similar, GAO determined the negative finding was warranted.
Lack of Detail
FreeAliiance objected to negative findings it had received for a lack of detail in describing its technical approach. FreeAlianace asserted that it had provided the same level of detail as Perrygo. GAO begged to differ, reasoning that there were real differences between proposals. FreeAlliance’s proposal was not as well organized or detailed as Perrygo’s.
Perrygo’s Experience
FreeAlliance argued that Perrygo made a misrepresentation in its proposal, stating that it had 50 years of experience when the company had only been around for seven years. GAO saw no misrepresentation. Perrygo had simply represented that its team, a collection of entities, had 50 years of combined experience.
FreeAlliance is represented by Jon Levin, W. Brad English, and Emily J. Chancey of Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC. The intervenor, Perrygo, is represented by Jonathan T. Williams, Katherine B. Burrows, Jacqueline K. Unger, and Patrick T. Rothwell of PilieroMazza PLLC. The agency is represented by Heather Norris and Cristina Costa de Almeida of the Navy. GAO attorneys Samantha S. Lee, Peter H. Tran, and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
