A sizable percentage of protests allege the agency unequally evaluated proposals or applied unstated criteria. These arguments rarely prevail. But in this case, the protester succeeded on both theories.
SecuriFense Inc., GAO B-421818.2 et al.
- Oral Presentation – The solicitation required offerors to give oral presentations. The agency penalized the protester for not addressing (1) what it would do if staffing fell below75%, and (2) the possibility of multiple absences. The protester argued it addressed these issues. But GAO agreed with the agency.
- Unequal Treatment-Staffing – The protester was penalized for not addressing what to do if staffing fell below 75%. The protester argued the awardee should have also been penalized for not addressing this 75% staffing issue. GAO agreed. During its oral presentation, the awardee had simply stated it would not let staffing drop below 75%. But GAO noted the solicitation required offerors to address what they would do if staffing dropped below 75%, not how they would prevent staffing from dropping below 75%. The agency disparately evaluated the presentations.
- Unequal Treatment-Incumbent Personnel – The protester also argued the agency unreasonably credited the awardee’s ability to retain staff, but the agency didn’t reach the same conclusion with respect to the protester’s ability to retain staff. The agency said the protester had only generically mentioned retention of staff. But GAO found the awardee’s proposal was generic, too. The awardee had not provided any evidence to support its retention claims. Both offerors had provided the same information on retention and should have received the same rating.
- Unstated Criteria – The protester said the agency applied unstated criteria when it penalized the protester for not addressing audiovisual or multimedia tasks. GAO again sided with the protester. The solicitation said nothing anything about audiovisual or multimedia tasks, and the agency had not asked about those tasks during the presentation.
The protester is represented by Jeremy D. Burkhart, Ronald Perlman, and Danielle Rich of Holland & Knight LLP. The awardee is represented by Edward Tolchin of Offit Kurman. The agency is represented by Jason R. Hull, Max D. Houltz, William S. Whitman, and Darren S. Gilkes of the Defense Intelligence Agency. GAO attorneys Mary G. Curcio and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
