Protest challenging agency’s technical and past performance evaluations is denied. The protester argued that the agency had erred in assigning a weakness to a portion of its technical proposal. The protester contended that portion of the proposal was not required by the solicitation, so the agency should not have considered it. But GAO determined that the agency’s evaluation of that portion was reasonable. If the protester did not want the agency to consider a portion of its proposal, then it should not have submitted that portion. The protester also contended that the agency should not have looked behind the adjectival ratings it assigned under the past performance factor. Agencies, however, are supposed to look behind adjectival ratings in making an award decision.
Avalon Contracting protested the DoD’s award of contract to maintain the memorial to the victims of the September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon. Avalon challenged DoD’s technical and past performance evaluations.
Avalon first challenged a weakness it received under the technical approach factor for the company’s approach to providing service call responses. Avalon had included a Quality Control Plan in its proposal with a sample of a “Tenant Not Available” tag that would hang on the door of the facility. DoD determined that inclusion of this tag demonstrated a lack of understanding of the PWS requirements because the memorial was outside and did not have doors.
Avalon argued that DoD should not have considered the Quality Control Plan because it was not part of the company’s technical volume. Avalon also contended that the weakness it received for its technical approach was unreasonable because the solicitation did not indicate that Quality Control Plans would be evaluated. Moreover, Avalon argued, it was unreasonable for the agency to assign a weakness for the tag, which, in Avalon’s view, was a trivial issue.
GAO found DoD’s evaluation reasonable. While it not required to, Avalon submitted the Quality Control Plan as part of its technical volume. Avalon failed to explain why it submitted the plan if it did not intend for DoD to evaluate it. Indeed, the solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate for completeness. It was reasonable for DoD to evaluate everything that was submitted with the proposal.
As to Avalon’s contention that the tag was a trivial issue, GAO noted that DoD had concluded that the weakness was minor and not indicative of Avalon’s overall performance. The record showed that the tag weakness was not a determinative factor in the award decision.
Avalon also argued that DoD misevaluated past performance. Specifically, Avalon argued that once DoD had determined that the both the awardee and Avalon warranted a satisfactory confidence rating on past performance, it was unreasonable for the agency to determine that the awardee had superior past performance. But GAO found that it was reasonable for DoD to look behind the assigned the rating to compare the qualitative value of the proposals. Indeed, the qualitative information underlying technical ratings is the very thing agency’s should consider in making a source selection decision.
The protester is represented by Kevin Ingley. The intervenor, Facility Services Management, is represented by Bonnie Kirkland and John Dulske of Dykema Gossett PLLC. The agency is represented by Andrew Bramnick, Michael G. Anderson, and Elizabeth Urrutia of the Department of Defense. GAO attorneys Andrew J. Smith and Amy B. Pereira participated in the preparation of the decision.
