Protester and Awardee Had the Same Adjectival Ratings. Why Did GAO Think the Agency Disparately Evaluated Proposals?

The protester said the agency disparately evaluated experience references. The agency argued it couldn’t have assessed disparately because it rated everyone’s references as highly relevant. Despite these identical adjectival ratings, GAO still found the agency assessed the references unequally. 

Insight Technology Solutions, LLC, GAO B-421764.2 et al. 

• Factual Error – The protester contended the technical evaluation team inaccurately summarized its evaluation of the awardee’s experience references. GAO agreed. The TET had rated one of the awardee’s references as merely relevant. But the TET then erroneously summarized its findings by stating that all the awardee’s references were highly relevant. 
• Disparate Evaluation – The protester alleged the agency disparately evaluated their experience. The protester said the agency gave the awardee credit for its experience with naval ship acquisitions but had not given the protester credit for similar experience. The agency rated both offerors’ references highly relevant, so the evaluation could not have been unequal. But GAO rejected the agency’s argument. The SSA had expressly found the awardee’s experience to be a distinguishing difference between the proposals.  
• Prejudice – GAO concluded the agency’s errors in evaluating experience prejudiced the protester. The SSA had found the protester’s slight advantage under the management factor did not outweigh the awardee’s experience advantage. But if the agency had properly evaluated experience, it wasn’t clear the awardee would have the same advantage. 

Alexander B. Ginsberg and Frank V. DiNicola of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP represent the protester. The intervenor is represented by Stephen P. Ramaley, C. Peter Dungan, Roger V. Abbott, and Lauren S. Fleming of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. The agency is represented by Gabriel D Soll and Mark J. Wisniewski of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Kenneth L. Kilgour and Jennifer D. Westfall. McGrail participated in the decision. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor