Protest challenging agency’s evaluation is denied. The protester alleged its proposal deserved more strengths. GAO said, not so. The protester complained about an upward adjustment of its costs, but GAO found the protester had not been prejudiced by the adjustment.
The Army posted an RFp seeking systems engineering and technical assistance. The agency received 13 proposals, including offers from 22nd Century Technologies and Telesis Corporation. Both 22nd Century and Telesis received the highest possible technical ratings. But the Army selected Telesis due to its slight lower price. 22nd Century protested
22nd Century contended the Army should have assessed additional strengths to its proposal for (1 providing experience examples that had been performed by 22nd Century, not a subcontractor, and (2) for submitting experience references larger than the effort contemplated by the solicitation.Â
GAO rejected both arguments. The solicitation did not express a preference for prime offeror experience. Moreover, 22nd Century had not explained how its experience performing larger contractors would be advantageous to the agency.
22nd Century also complained that the agency had erred in upwardly adjusting the company’s costs. GAO found that even if this had been an error, 22nd Century had not been prejudiced. Even without the adjustment, its costs would still be higher than the awardee’s.
22nd Century is represented by W. Brad English, Jon D. Levin, J. Dale Gipson, Emily J. Chancey, and Nicholas P. Greer of Maynard Cooper & Gale PC. The agency is represented by Wade L. Brown and Carlin R. Walsh of the Army. GAO attorneys Jacob M. Talcott and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
