Protest challenging the evaluation of proposals is denied. The protester alleged that the agency had applied unstated criteria by considering problems with the incumbent’s performance when assessing the protester’s proposal. But GAO reasoned that the protester had in fact advertised its partnership with the incumbent throughout its proposal. The protester clearly thought its association with the incumbent was a benefit. The protester could not complain when it turned out the incumbent’s performance was not so great.
The Army issued a solicitation seeking to award a task order for cybersecurity, network operations, and information technology support. STG, LLC and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), among others, submitted proposals.
The Army awarded the contract to SAIC. Although SAIC’s price was higher than STG’s, the SSA found that SAIC’s proposal was technically superior with significant additional underlying strengths. What’s more, STG had proposed to subcontract with General Dynamics, the incumbent contractor. The SSA noted that General Dynamics had experienced staffing problems as the incumbent, which increased the likelihood of performance risk for STG. STG protested.
STG contended that it should have received a strength for its approach to video teleconferencing operations because its approach far exceeded the solicitation’s requirements. GAO, however, agreed with the Army’s assessment. STG had only provided a bare bones description of its video conferencing support that met but did not exceed solicitation requirements. STG’s argument amounted to disagreement with the agency’s evaluation conclusions.
Next, STG complained of discrepancies between the initial and final evaluation reports, contending that these issues indicated that the record was riddled with errors. GAO found this allegation meritless. GAO’s concern is not whether final ratings are consistent with preliminary ratings, but rather whether the final ratings reflect the relative merits of the proposals. GAO found the final ratings reflected the merits.
STG also objected to the best value determination arguing that the SSA improperly considered the incumbent’s previous staffing problems on the incumbent effort. STG claimed that the SSA’s consideration of incumbent performance amounted to unstated evaluation criteria. The solicitation had not stated that offerors would be evaluated against performance issues of the incumbent contractor.
But GAO found that STG’s complaint was belied by its proposal, which advertised throughout that the company had a partnership with General Dynamics. It was clear that STG believed is partnership with General Dynamics was an asset that the Army should have considered when evaluating proposals. The company could not now complain that the Army actually considered General Dynamics’s performance as part of the evaluation. Moreover, the solicitation required offerors to demonstrate how they would meet requirements without introducing unacceptable risk. Given this requirement, it was appropriate for the SSA rely on his personal knowledge of the predecessor effort when assessing STG’s approach.
STG also argued that the SSA’s consideration of General Dynamics performance amounted to disparate treatment because SAIC had also proposed to use incumbent personnel. GAO, however, noted that while both offerors had proposed to hire incumbent employees, only STG had proposed to use the incumbent prime contractor as a subcontractor.
Finally, STG claimed the SSA conducted an impermissible price realism analysis. But GAO found that this argument was based entirely on a statement in the award decision that STG had misinterpreted. Rather than indicating that an impermissible price realism analysis, the statement actually reflected concerns with the risks in STG’s technical approach.
STG is represented by Jamie F. Tabb, Tyler E. Robinson, Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre, Ryan D. Stalnaker, and John M. Satira of Vinson & Elkins LLP. The intervenor, SAIC, is represented by James J. McCullough, Michael J. Anstett, and Brendan C. McNamara of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The agency is represented by Major Felix S. Mason and Major Abraham L. Young of the Army. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
