The protester contended that the agency misevaluated its proposal under the performance criteria. GAO disagreed. It found the agency reasonably assessed risks associated with the protester’s use of proprietary software.
Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc., GAO B-423376; B-423376.2; B-423376.3
- Background – The Navy issued a request for quotations (RFQ) for educational and logistical support services for the Royal Saudi Naval Forces. Following the submission of proposals, the agency awarded the task order to the awardee despite the protester’s lower-priced offer. The protester challenged this decision, alleging that the agency misevaluated proposals under both performance and past performance criteria, leading to an unreasonable award decision.
- Performance Evaluation Concerns – The protester argued that the agency misread its communication strategy and unjustly highlighted weaknesses. GAO pointed out that evaluations must align with the proposal’s content. It noted that the agency reasonably perceived risks based on the protester’s submission regarding communication protocols and the use of proprietary software. It concluded that the evaluation was justifiable and consistent with the solicitation’s criteria.
- Past Performance Evaluation – The protester contended that the agency erroneously credited the awardee’s past performance based on its corporate affiliations. GAO noted that the evaluation of past performance is discretionary and upheld the agency’s decision to consider the awardee’s parent and subsidiary as a closely integrated operation. The record demonstrated that the awardee had been successfully performing the relevant contract, justifying the agency’s assessment.
- Best-Value Tradeoff Justification – The protester criticized the source selection decision, claiming it leaned too heavily on adjectival ratings and failed to adequately justify the higher costs of the awardee’s proposal. GAO disagreed, asserting that the agency conducted a thorough best-value tradeoff, recognizing the distinct strengths of the awardee’s proposal, particularly its superior performance approach that warranted the increased cost. The decision emphasized that the evaluation was reasonable and well-supported by the facts presented.
The protester is represented by John R. Prairie, Esq., Cara L. Sizemore, Esq., and Vaibhavi Patria, Esq., of Wiley Rein LLP, and J. Daniel Puckett, Esq., of Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc. The intervenor is represented by James Y. Boland, Esq., Taylor M. Sorrells, Esq., and Emily R. Marcy, Esq., of Venable LLP. The agency is represented by Tabia J. Cole, Esq., and James J. Gross, Esq., of the Department of the Navy. GAO attorneys Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., participated in the decision.
