The protester challenged several aspects of the evaluation. The court found many of the protester’s arguments compelling. The agency botched the evaluation of experience, technical approach, and management approach. Nevertheless, the court found the protester had not been prejudiced by these evaluation errors. Even accounting for the errors, the protester had not shown it was entitled to a higher technical rating or that it could overcome the moderate risk rating assessed to it price.
Golden IT, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 22-1471
Background
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued an RFQ to vendors holding GSA’s IT multiple award schedule contract. The RFQ sought sustainment support to technology systems. The RFQ stated the evaluation would be conducted in phases. In phase 1, USDA would evaluate experience. Phase 2 focused on technical approach, management, and price. USDA intended to award multiple blanket purchase agreements.
Golden IT, LLC submitted a phase 1 quotation. USDA didn’t think Golden’s phase 1 proposal was strong. The agency advised Golden not to proceed to phase 2. But Golden submitted a phase 2 proposal. Golden’s phase 2 proposal didn’t fare much better. USDA selected eight other vendors for award. Golden filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims.
Analysis
Phase 1 Evaluation
Golden objected to several aspects of the agency phase 1 experience evaluation. The court found several objections compelling. First, the court found USDA disparately evaluated Golden’s quotation when it penalized Golden for lacking experience with certain software tools while not penalizing other vendors who also lacked experience. Second, the court found USDA erred in not considering the experience of Golden’s joint venture partner as required by SBA regulations. Third, Golden submitted two past contracts as experience references. It was unclear whether USDA had actually considered one of the references.
Phase 2 Evaluation
The court also found problems with the Phase 2 evaluation. USDA found Golden didn’t address key issues. The court found the agency hadn’t explained this finding. The RFQ had not identified key issues nor had it stated USDA would place greater emphasis on certain key issues. Additionally, USDA penalized Golden for not breaking out the level of effort for tasks. The court found USDA had not sufficiently explained this concern.
Prejudice
Although Golden established multiple evaluation errors, the court found the company had not been prejudiced. Golden had received a “some confidence” rating under both phase 1 and phase 2. The awardees had all received “high confidence” ratings. Even with the evaluation errors, Golden had not shown it had a chance of receiving a high confidence rating. And if Golden had received “high confidence” rating, the company still had a price problem. USDA worried Golden’s steep discount would impact its ability to retain staff. Golden had not overcome the risk assessed to its price.
Golden is represented by Jon D. Levin, W. Brad English, Emily J. Chancey, Joshua B. Duvall, and Nicholas P. Greer of Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC. The intervenor, ITCON, is represented by Eric A. Valle, Jonathan T. Williams, Katherine B. Burrows, and Kevin T. Barnett of PilieroMazza PLLC. The government is represented by Rafique O. Anderson of the Department of Justice and Elin . Dugan of the Department of Agriculture.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
