Protest challenging the agency’s decision to deduct points from the protester’s self-scored proposal is denied, where the protester took credit for demonstrating previous experience performing in its proposed prime/subcontractor arrangement, but its previous CTA showed that both vendors had privity of contract with the government and there was no prime/subcontractor relationship.
Amyx Inc. protested the General Services Administration’s evaluation of its proposal for a contract for IT services, challenging the agency’s evaluation of Amyx’s proposed business arrangement with a subcontractor.
The RFP provided that award would be made to the 80 highest technically rated offerors that offered fair and reasonable prices. The RFP established criteria for assigning technical points for past performance; relevant experience; systems, certifications, and clearances; and organizational risk assessment, and directed offerors to self-score their proposals against these criteria.
As relevant to the protest, the solicitation assigned a potential 7,500 points to proposals demonstrating that the offeror had previously performed in the proposed business arrangement. A potential offeror asked a pre-closing question whether an offeror that was proposing a prime/subcontractor business arrangement had to have been the prime contract holder in the prior relationship. The agency responded that to claim the 7,500 points, an offeror proposing a prime/subcontractor arrangement procurement must have been the prime contractor in the prior relationship.
In its proposal, Amyx stated it would perform the contract under a prime/subcontractor relationship with a single subcontractor. Amyx claimed the 7,500 points for its proposal and provided a copy of a contractor team arrangement (CTA) between Amyx, the subcontractor, and a third contractor, under which the three contractors had performed work for another agency. The CTA stated that each team member would function as an independent contractor and not as an agent of any team member, and that each team member would have privity of contract with the government.
However, the agency concluded that the proposal did not demonstrate that Amyx had previously performed in the business arrangement it proposed for this procurement, noting that the prior CTA created different relationships and responsibilities from Amyx’s proposed prime/subcontractor arrangement. Accordingly, the agency deducted the 7,500 points Amyx claimed for this factor. As a result, Amyx’s proposal was not among the highest rated offerors who received awards. This protest followed.
Amyx argued the agency failed to properly consider its previous business arrangement with its subcontractor. According to Amyx, the prior relationship also involved a team that was organized by Amyx. As team lead, Amyx was responsible for the type of functions typically associated with a prime contractor and effectively operated as a prime contractor.
In response, the agency argued that Amyx’s CTA was not the same arrangement as the prime/subcontractor arrangement proposed for this procurement. The agency noted that under this prior arrangement each team member had privity of contract with the government, and each team member submitted invoices and received payment from the government. The agency also noted that its response to the pre-closing date question clearly established that, where an offeror proposed a prime/subcontractor relationship for this procurement, it must demonstrate that the parties had previously performed in a prime/subcontractor relationship.
GAO agreed, finding that the terms of the solicitation clearly set out the conditions under which a contractor could claim the 7,500 points for this factor. Because Amyx had not demonstrated it had performed on a prior contract as a prime contractor with its proposed subcontractor, the agency reasonably deducted the points from its proposal, causing it to fall below the threshold for award.
Amyx Inc. is represented by Kenneth D. Brody and Thomas K. David of David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP. The government is represented by Fallyme E. Guerrero and James T. Van Biber, General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.