The protester, who was the incumbent, argued it was inconceivable that any offeror but the incumbent could receive the highest experience rating. But GAO reasoned an offeror’s incumbency status does not necessarily mean its experience is better than others.
AECOM Technical Services, Inc., GAO B-422030, B-422030.2
- Corporate Experience – The agency assessed the awardee the highest rating under the corporate experience factor. The protester, who was the incumbent, argued it was inconceivable that any offeror but the incumbent could receive the highest experience rating. GAO found this argument was based entirely on supposition. The protester did not know what was in the awardee’s proposal, or how the agency might have considered it. What’s more, GAO said, an offeror may be the incumbent, but that doesn’t automatically mean their experience is better than everyone else’s.
- Key Personnel – The protester said it should have been credited for proposing additional key personnel. But the record showed the agency had, in fact, credited the protester for the additional personnel.
- Unstated Criteria – The agency penalized the protester for not proposing a technical engineer. The protester claimed this was unstated criteria; the solicitation did not require a technical engineer. But GAO found a technical engineer was logically encompassed by the stated criteria. The PWS outlined technical engineering tasks. Not proposing a technical engineer lowered the agency’s expectations of successful performance.
The protester is represented by Kevin P. Connelly, Kelly E. Buroker, and Jeffrey M. Lowry of Vedder Price P.C. The awardee is represented by Robert J. Symon, Patrick R. Quigley, Nathaniel J. Greeson, and Owen E. Salyers of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The agency is represented by Patrick J. Madigan of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Jacob M. Talcott and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
