Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation is denied. The protester argued that its proposal should not have been found technically unacceptable based on significant weaknesses assigned under the two least important subfactors. But the solicitation provided that a proposal may be evaluated as technically unacceptable with an unacceptable risk under any subfactor regardless of importance. The protester also alleged that the agency erred in finding that its approach to complying with federal consumer protection laws lacked detail. GAO, however, concurred with the agency, finding that the protester’s proposal only discussed federal laws in general, not the specific consumer protection laws required by the solicitation.
The Department of Education (DOE) issued a solicitation seeking a contractor to support the agency’s Office of Federal Student Aid with student financing. The solicitation contemplated award of multiple IDIQ contracts. Twelve offerors, including Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, submitted proposals. DOE found Perspecta’s proposal technically unacceptable and thus ineligible for award. Perspecta protested.
Perspecta alleged that DOE had ignored the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and rating scheme. Perspecta noted that staffing was the most important subfactor under the solicitation’s technical factor, and that the company had received a strength under that subfactor. Given this strength, the company argued, it was unreasonable for DOE to find that its proposal represented a risk of unacceptable performance based on the assignment of weaknesses under the two least important—security and consumer protection laws—subfactors.
GAO was unpersuaded. While security and consumer protection laws might be the two least important subfactors, the solicitation specifically provided that a proposal may be evaluated as technically unacceptable with an unacceptable risk under any subfactor. The solicitation did not provide that the subfactor had to be the most important subfactor.
Perspecta also objected to a significant weakness it had received for not describing how the company would ensure compliance with federal consumer protections laws and regulations. Perspecta contended that its proposal had explained in detail how it would comply. But GAO found that Perspecta’s proposal only included a discussion of general federal laws and did not address specific consumer protection laws in detail.
Perspecta further alleged that DOE disparately evaluated its proposal relative to another awardee F.H. Cann. Perspecta contended that its proposal had been found technically unacceptable even though it had been assigned a strength under the most important staffing subfactor. But F.H. Cann had been assigned a marginal rating under the technical factor even though it had received two weaknesses under the staffing subfactor.
GAO found that this did not demonstrate disparate treatment. DOE had found that Perspecta’s strength under the staffing factor had not offset a weakness it had also received under that factor. Moreover, Perspecta had also been assigned two significant weaknesses under the security and consumer protection laws subfactors. Its proposal represented an unacceptable risk under each of these subfactors.
Perspecta is represented by Kevin J. Maynard, Kendra Perkins Norwood, Cara L. Lasley, and George Petel of Wiley Rein LLP. Intervenors Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority and Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation are represented by Scott F. Lane and Katherine S. Nucci of Thompson Coburn LLP. Intervenor F.H. Cann is represented by James C. Fontana, Jeffrey R. Cook, James D’Agostino, and David Dempsey of Dempsey Fontana, PLLC. The agency is represented by Megan R. Nathan and John W. Kim of the Department of Education. GAO attorneys Mary G. Curcio and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.
