An award notification that did not identify the solicitation and had a different title than the solicitation did not put offerors on notice that an award had been made. Accordingly, a protest filed more than a month after the award announcement—but within ten days of actual notice—was timely. Nevertheless, GAO denied the protest on its merits, finding that the past performance evaluation and best value tradeoff were reasonable.
Gulf Civilization General Trading & Contracting Company protested the award of a Defense Logistics Agency contract to manage excess material as a military base in Kuwait. Gulf, which had a higher-ranked and higher-priced proposal, challenged DLA’s past performance evaluation, cost assessment, and best value tradeoff.
As an initial matter, DLA requested that GAO dismiss the protest as untimely because it was filed a month after the agency posted notice of the award on the Federal Business Opportunities website. GAO, however, found that the award notice was flawed. It did not include or otherwise link to the underlying solicitation. Moreover, the title of the award notice was different form the title of the solicitation. Because the award notice lacked critical information, GAO was unwilling to apply the usual presumption that offerors are on constructive notice of FBO postings. Gulf filed its protest within 10 days of receiving actual notice of award—the protest was timely.
As to the merits of the protest, Gulf argued that the past performance evaluation was flawed because the awardee’s past performance references were not sufficiently similar in scope or complexity to the services required in the solicitation. GAO found that the references were similar based on performance locations, dollar values, number of personnel, and labor categories. To the extent that Gulf was arguing that the references were not a one-to-one match with every aspect of the solicitation, the solicitation did not require a one-to-one match. The past performance evaluation was reasonable.
Next, Gulf argued that the awardee’s price was unrealistically low, indicating the awardee did not understand the contract’s requirements. GAO noted that the solicitation did not include price realism as an evaluation criterion. Accordingly, DLA was not required nor permitted to consider whether prices were realistic.
Finally, Gulf contended that the best value analysis was flawed. The solicitation stated that past performance was significantly more important than price. Gulf had a better past performance rating than the awardee. Thus, Gulf concluded, it should have received the award regardless of its higher price.
GAO found that the contracting officer had recognized the limitations in the awardee’s past performance references. Regardless of those limitations, the contracting officer reasonably concluded that Gulf’s superior past performance did not warrant a 24.84% price premium.
The protester is represented by Gabriel Grillo. The government is represented by Robin E. Walters of the Defense Logistics Agency. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan and Amy B Pereira participated in the preparation of the decision.