The agency assessed significant weaknesses to the protester’s quotation for failing to demonstrate experience required by the solicitation. The protester argued it had required the experience, but the agency had missed it by focusing on the wrong things. GAO denied the protest, reasoning that it’s an offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written quotation. The agency wasn’t to blame for missing information in the quotation. Rather, the protester should’ve done a better job describing its experience.
eKuber Ventures, Inc., GAO B-420877, B-420877.2
Background
GSA issued an RFQ to small business holders of the Corporate Information Technology Services blanket purchase agreement. The RFQ sought professional support services for enterprise data analytics. Two vendors, eKuber Ventures and Highlight Technologies, submitted quotations. GSA awarded the contract to Highlight based on the company’s higher-rated, lower-priced quotation. eKuber protested.
Analysis
Technical Capability
GSA assessed several significant weaknesses to eKuber under the RFQ’s technical capability factor for the company’s lack of experience with Public Data Integration Repository Management (PDIRM). eKuber contended that it had the required experience from working as a subcontractor on the project that preceded PDRIM.
But GAO found that eKuber had not properly demonstrated this experience. eKuber’s quotation made only a few passing references to this predecessor project. It’s a vendor’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal that clearly demonstrates compliance with solicitation requirements. Moreover, while eKuber had submitted a copy of this subcontract as part of its protest filings, it had not included the contract in its proposal. GAO’s review is limited to the proposal as submitted.
Staffing Approach
eKuber had also received several weaknesses under the staffing approach factor because its proposed personnel lacked experience with Oracle applications as required by the RFQ. eKuber argued GSA had ignored the full spectrum of the resumes for its proposed personnel and focused only the fact that some of those resumes listed experience with older technologies. Again, however, GAO found that the issue was with eKuber’s quotation. To the extent its proposed personnel had the required experience, eKuber had not sufficiently highlighted this in its quotation.
Disparate Treatment
eKuber’s quotation had received weaknesses for submitting resumes with outdated technologies. eKuber contended that Highlight had also submitted resumes that listed experience with outdated technology, but did not similarly receive weaknesses. eKuber asserted the agency must’ve disparately evaluated proposals. But GAO found that eKuber’s and Highlight’s quotations were not comparable. While Highlight’s resumes listed some older technologies, unlike eKuber’s, they also listed experience with current technologies.
eKuber is represented by Lewis P. Rhodes and Orest Jowyk of McMahon, Welch and Learned LLC. The intervenor, Highlight, is represented by Richard D. Kelley of Bean, Kinney & Korman P.C. The agency is represented by Shirin E. Ahlhauser of the General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Sarah T. Zaffina and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
