The agency identified concerns with the protester’s proposal. The protester said the concerns were weaknesses that should have been raised during discussions. GAO found that even if the concerns were weaknesses, the protester had not been prejudiced. An agency need only discuss significant weaknesses and deficiencies.
- Misleading Discussions – The agency identified several “concerns” with the protester’s proposal. The protester argued these concerns qualified as weaknesses and should have been raised during discussions. But GAO found that even if the concerns had been weaknesses, the protester had not been prejudiced. The agency only needs to raise significant weaknesses or deficiencies during discussions. The protester had not argued the concerns amounted to significant weaknesses or deficiencies.
- Management Concern – The protester objected to a weakness it received under the management factor. The agency was concerned the protester would not be ready in time to perform the contract. GAO found the protester’s argument amounted to disagreement with the agency.
- Disparate Treatment – The protester complained that the awardee had been credited for its staffing retention approach, but the protester had not been credited for a similar approach. GAO found the approaches were not indistinguishable. The awardee described a range of engagement practices with employees. The protester did not have a similar level of engagement.
The protester is represented by Dawn E. Stern, Christina M. Alvarez, and Andrew W. Current of DLA Piper LLP. The awardee is represented by Anne B. Perry, Jonathan S. Aronie, Katie A. Calogero, and Daniel J. Alvarado of Sheppard. Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. The agency is represented by ChristiniaLynn E. McCoy, Ronald M. LaRocca, and Sharon E. Chamberlain of the National Security Agency. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Peter H. Tran participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
