Protest objecting to various aspects of agency’s evaluation of the awardee is denied. The protester argued that the agency failed to adequately assess the role of the awardee’s affiliates in performance. The record, however, showed the agency thoroughly considered the involvement of the affiliates. The protester argued that the awardee’s low price demonstrated a lack of technical understanding. GAO found that this amounted to price realism challenge, and that the solicitation did not permit an evaluation of realism. The protester objected to the best value tradeoff, arguing that the agency should have chosen its higher-rated, higher-priced proposal. GAO opined that the agency reasonably determined the protester’s higher-rating did not justify it higher price.
The Department of Energy (DOE) issued an RFQ to holders of GSA information technology FSS contracts. The RFQ sought operations and maintenance support for the DOE’s corporate business systems. The RFQ contemplated award of a blanket purchase agreement. Award would be made on a best value basis with non-price factors more important than price. But the RFQ warned that the government would not make award to a price premium it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with a higher price.
Five vendors, including the incumbent, Appsential, LLC, and General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), submitted quotes. Appsential had the highest-rated quote. Still, DOE found, GDIT proposed a solid technical approach that was likely to exceed performance expectations. Appsential’s price was about 60% higher than GDIT’s. DOE opined that Appsential’s additional benefits did not warrant its higher price. Thus, DOE selected GDIT for award. Appsential protested.
Appsential challenged the evaluation of GDIT under the corporate experience factor. GDIT had submitted experience from some it affiliates. Appsential argued that DOE had failed to consider the sufficiency of those affiliates’ involvement in the performance of the BPA requirements.
GAO noted that an agency may properly attribute the experience of affiliates to a vendor when the firm’s quotation demonstrates that the resources of the affiliates will have meaningful involvement in performing the contract. Here, DOE reasonably concluded that GDIT’s quotation meaningfully discussed the affiliates' intended involvement, including identification of specific responsibilities and use of the affiliates’ employees, resources, and knowledge.
Appsential also challenged the evaluation of GDIT under the technical understanding factor. Appsential argued that GDIT’s deficient staff presented high risk and its “extraordinarily low price" demonstrated a failure to understand the technical requirements.
GAO found that this was really a backdoor price realism argument. To the extent that Appsential relied on GDIT’s “extraordinarily low price” it amounted to an assertion that the agency was required to perform a price realism evaluation, which was not permitted by the solicitation. Moreover, GAO found no other reason to question DOE’s technical evaluation. The record showed that the agency reasonably considered GDIT’s approach. Appsential simply disagreement with DOE’s evaluation conclusions.
Appsential also objected to the evaluation of GDIT under the management approach factor, arguing that one of its key personnel did not meet the minimum qualification requirements. Appsential further argued that a strength assigned to GDIT for its governance plan constituted the application of unstated criteria because nothing in the RFQ required vendors to propose a governance plan.
GAO rejected these arguments. GAO found that the Appsential was simply wrong about the qualifications of GDIT’s key person. The resume GDIT submitted expressly represented that the individual not only met but exceeded the RFQ’s requirements. What’s more, GAO found the agency did not apply unstated criteria. While the RFQ did not require a governance plan, it required vendors to discuss their management approach. The evaluation of GDIT’s detailed governance plan was subsumed within the stated criteria.
Appsential alleged that DOE unreasonably evaluated GDIT’s price. Appsential suggested that GDIT's price demonstrated the company did not understand the RFQ’s requirements. Once again, GAO found that Appsential’s argument broached a price realism argument, and that the RFQ did not provide for a price realism analysis. Aside from that, the record showed that the DOE’s price evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms.
Lastly, Appsential objected to the best value tradeoff, arguing that DOE had no reasonable basis to conclude that Appsential’s advantages did not provide a basis for its higher cost. But GAO found that the agency performed a comprehensive review and comparison of the quotations’ benefits and costs. The agency specifically recognized Appsential’s multiple strengths, but reasonably concluded they did not warrant the significant price premium.
Appsential is represented by Eric S. Crusius, David S. Black, Gregory R. Hallmark, and Kelsey M. Hayes of Holland & Knight LLP. The intervenor, GDIT, is represented by Carla J. Weiss, Noah B. Bleicher, and Umer M. Chaudhry of Jenner & Block, LLP. The agency is represented by Stephanie B. Young, Kevin R. Hilferty, and Stephanie Villalta of the Department of Energy. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.