Protest alleging that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions and disparately evaluated proposals is denied. The protester contended the agency did not inform of it significant weaknesses its proposal and thus did not hold meaningful discussions. GAO found that the agency had only assigned weaknesses, not significant weaknesses, to the proposal and was not obligated to raise mere weaknesses during discussions. The protester also argued that it was treated unequally, but GAO found the differences between the protester’s and awardee’s ratings were based on substantive differences in their proposals.
The U.S. Agency for International Development awarded a contract to Creative Services International (CAI) to provide educational services in Somalia. An unsuccessful offeror, Education Development Center (EDC), protested, arguing that USAID did not hold meaningful discussions and unequally evaluated proposals.
EDC contended that discussions were flawed because USAID failed to inform the company about significant weaknesses assessed to its technical proposal. USAID countered that it only assigned weaknesses, as opposed to significant weaknesses, to the technical proposal and thus was not obligated to raise those weaknesses during discussions. But EDC alleged that the weaknesses were treated as substantively significant, leading USAID to question whether EDC could successfully perform the contract.
GAO noted that an agency is not required to advise an offeror of a weakness that is not considered significant even if that weakness is determinative in choosing between proposals. GAO did not believe that weaknesses assessed to EDC’s proposal were significant. The record showed that USAID did not consider the any of the weaknesses flaws that appreciably increased the risk of unsuccessful performance. Indeed, even with the weaknesses, USAID has assigned EDC’s technical proposal a Very Good rating, indicating that the company had a strong grasp of the requirements. The weaknesses were merely a critique that EDC’s proposal would provide less than the desired amount of value; they were not a conclusion that EDC could not perform the contract.
EDC raised a similar argument with respect to a weakness assigned to its key personnel and staffing plan. EDC contended that USAID had treated this weakness—for a staffing inefficiency—as significant and thus should have raised it during discussions. But GAO found that while this weaknesses factored into the Satisfactory rating that EDC received under the staffing plan subfactor, the record showed that USAID thought the weakness would only moderately increase the risk of unsuccessful performance. In fact, USAID had confidence in EDC’s ability to perform the contract but simply chose CAI because it had a higher rated proposal and a lower price.
Lastly, EDC alleged that USAID disparately evaluated proposals. EDC argued that USAID assigned CAI a significant strength for addressing teacher well-being but did not similarly credit EDC for addressing teacher well-being. GAO, however, found that the differences in the offerors’ ratings stemmed from differences in their proposals. CAI had a separate section in its proposal devoted to teacher well-being. EDC only generally mentioned teacher well-being without proposing any specific approach.
EDC is represented by David S. Black and Gregory R. Hallmark of Holland & Knight LLP. The intervenor, CAI , is represented by Devon E. Hewitt, Michael E. Stamp, and Scott M. Dinner, of Protorae Law PLLC. The agency is represented by Danielle Lindermuth and Rachel B. Cochran of the U.S. Agency for International Development. GAO attorneys Joshua R. Gillerman and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
