Protest challenging protester’s elimination from the competition is denied, where the protester failed to provide accurate supporting information validating its experience on relevant projects.
Software Engineering Services Corporation protested the General Services Administration’s award of an IT services contract to All Points Logistics LLC, challenging the elimination of its proposal from the competition.
The RFP permitted offerors to submit up to 10 contracts for relevant experience. The RFP also required that offerors submit the following specific documents for each contact: a relevant experience template, a copy of the original award form, and a copy of the contract’s statement of work. Using the required self-scoring worksheet, SES claimed a score of 35,000 – 3,500 points for each of the 10 claimed relevant experience projects – and a total score of 81,400 points.
However, the agency’s evaluation found that SES provided discrepant subcontract references for one project. The evaluators deducted the 3,500 points that SES self-scored under this category for failing to provide the required documentation. The agency also deducted 3,500 points for another project that was missing the required SOW. In addition, since these two references were removed for inadequate verification, the agency also deducted an additional 350 points that SES claimed for relevant experience in a foreign location and 750 points that SES claimed for relevant experience demonstrating management of larger value projects. Once these points were deducted, SES’s proposal was no longer among the highest-rated and the agency removed it from award consideration.
SES argued that the information in its proposal was sufficient to validate its relevant experience under the first project, and that the relevant experience template, award form, and SOW were all for that same project. According to SES, it asked the prime contractor to complete the relevant experience template, and the prime contractor referenced the incorrect contract. Had the agency not deducted the 3,500 points for this project, SES argued it would have remained within the point range for consideration for award.
GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency reasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal. Since the relevant experience template submitted by the protester did not reference the same subcontract in the actual agreement and in the SOW, the documents were insufficient to validate the experience. GAO explained again that a proposal that fails to clearly convey required information puts the offeror at risk for an adverse agency evaluation.
Software Engineering Services Corporation is represented by John M. Heida, of Heida Law Firm, LLC. All Points Logistics LLC is represented by Kenneth Brody, Thomas David, and Katherine David, of David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP. The government is represented by
Fallyme E. Guerrero, and James T. Van Biber, General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Nora K. Adkins and Amy B. Pereira participated in the preparation of the decision.