Did this Corrective Action Go Too Far? GAO Didn’t Think So.

GAO sustained a protest and recommended the agency reevaluate the protester. The agency reevaluated the protester, and it reevaluated the awardee. The protester argued the agency should not have reevaluated the awardee. But GAO had no problem with the agency’s thorough corrective action. 

Chugach Logistics-Facility Services JV, LLC, GAO B-421451.7 

• Initial Protest and Corrective Action – The protester challenged the award of a contract for maintenance services. GAO sustained and recommended the agency reevaluate the protester under the technical and past performance factors. The agency reevaluated the protester, and it decided to reevaluate the awardee under the management factor. Following the corrective action, the agency selected the awardee again. 

• Reevaluation of Awardee – The protester filed a second protest. The protester resaoned that after the first protest, GAO had only recommended reevaluation of the protester, so the agency should not have reevaluated the awardee’s proposal, too. GAO rejected the argument. The implementation of a corrective action is within an agency’s discretion. An agency is not required to follow the letter of a GAO recommendation. Here, the agency reasonably decided to reevaluate the awardee. The flaw that had previously impacted the initial evaluation of the protester’s proposal and resulted in a sustained protest also impacted the awardee’s initial proposal. 

• Omitted Strength – The protester contended the agency had identified two strengths in its proposal but failed to recognize one of them. GAO was not convinced. The agency had referred to multiple benefits in the protester’s management approach, but it clearly stated that together those benefits only resulted in a single strength. 

• Past Performance – The protester argued that the agency should have found one of its past performance references very relevant instead of relevant. GAO found the relevant rating appropriate. The protester’s reference was not of the same magnitude or complexity as the effort contemplated by the solicitation. 

The protester is represented by Douglas L. Patin and Lisa A. Markman of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The awardee is represented by Stowell B. Holcomb of Jackson Holcomb LLP. The agency is represented by John C. Degnan and Angela M. Fortier of the Army. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the decision. 

--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief