The solicitation said technical factors were significantly more important than price. Thus, the protester argued, the agency should’ve selected its technically superior proposal. But GAO found the protester’s high price negated its technical advantage.
McLaughlin Research Corporation, GAO B-421528 et al.
- Additional Strengths – The protester complained it only received one strength under the personnel subfactor. The protester argued the agency found three unique aspects of personnel approach beneficial. Thus, the protester reasoned, the agency should’ve assigned three strengths instead of one. GAO disagreed. The aspects the agency found beneficial were not unique. Rather, all the benefits related to the qualifications and experience of personnel. One strength was appropriate.
- Cost Realism – The protester claimed the agency didn’t account for the awardee’s use of part-time staff when assessing cost realism. GAO found the agency had considered the awardee’s use of part-time staff. The protester had not explained why using part-time staff was unrealistic. Moreover, GAO doubted this was prejudicial given the protester had also proposed part-timers.
- Best Value Tradeoff – The solicitation stated non-price factors were significantly more important than price. In light of this, the protester argued the agency could not have reasonably selected the awardee’s lower-rated proposal. But the solicitation stated price would decrease in importance when it was so high as to diminish the value of technical superiority. Here, the protester’s high-price negated its technical advantage.
The protester is represented by Katherine B. Burrows, Jonathan T. Williams, Eric A. Valle, and Annie B. Hudgins of PilieroMazza PLLC. The awardee is represented by Cherie J. Owen, Louis A. Chiarella, and Issac D. Schabes of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by Audra L. Medeiros of the Navy. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
