The protester thought the past performance evaluation was too focused on problems in its past contracts. But GAO determined the protester’s past problems evinced a negative performance trend. The agency properly weighed those problems in assessing the protester.
Allicent Technology, LLC, GAO B-421944.2
- Technical Weaknesses – The protester objected to weaknesses it received under the technical factor for failing to address desktop client packages and certain deliverables. GAO found the weaknesses were warranted. The protester only addressed these issues obliquely.
- Past Performance – The protester complained the past performance evaluation unreasonably weighed identified problems in the protester’s references. GAO, however, found that the protester had a problem controlling costs and with accounting on its past contracts. The agency considered these negative performance trends and appropriately assessed the protester a “good” — as opposed to excellent — rating under the past performance factor.
- Best Value Tradeoff – The protester contended the source selection decision merely recited bullet points without engaging in actual tradeoff. But GAO found the agency performed a comprehensive review and comparison of quotations.
The protester is represented by Ryan C. Bradel, Michael E. Hatch, and Brian S. Wu of Ward & Berry PLLC. The awardee is represented by Daniel J. Strouse and John J. O’Brien of Cordatis LLP. The agency is represented by Justin M. Wakefield, Nickolas S. Card, and Richard L. Hatfield of the Department of Treasury. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
