Protest alleging that the agency conducted misleading discussion is denied. During discussions the agency identified a deficiency and three weaknesses in the protester’s approach to a technical subfactor. But in the protester’s revised proposal, the agency assessed three deficiencies related to the protester’s approach to that same subfactor. The protester argued that the new deficiencies were the result of the agency’s misleading discussions. GAO found that the new deficiencies were instead due the protester’s failure to address solicitation amendments issued after the initial evaluation.
The Navy posted a solicitation seeking supplies and services for its enterprise-wide information technology networks. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), Leidos, Inc., and one other offeror submitted proposals.
The Navy held discussions with all offerors. While the Navy was conducting discussions, it amended the solicitation six times. Thus, when offerors submitted their final proposal revisions, they had to address the issues raised in discussions and the various changes made to the solicitation.
During discussion with GDIT, the Navy identified a deficiency and three weaknesses in the company’s approach to a technical subfactor for network operations. But when GDIT submitted its final proposal, the Navy identified three deficiencies under the network operations subfactor. As a result of these deficiencies, the Navy found GDIT’s proposal unacceptable. Following award to Leidos, GDIT protested.
GDIT argued that the deficiencies it received were a due to the Navy’s failure to properly explain its concerns to the company during discussions. GAO, however, found that it was not the discussions that lead to the deficiencies but rather GDIT’s failure to address solicitation amendments.
At the time of the initial evaluation, the solicitation instructions under the network operations subfactor only required offerors to describe their approach to planning and executing preventative maintenance and repairs. During discussions, the Navy amended to the network operations instructions to require offerors to describe their approach to providing, parts, tools, and support/test equipment. At that point, it become incumbent on offeror to submit a revised proposal that addressed these amended requirements. GDIT’s revised proposal, however, did not explain its approach to providing parts, tools, and equipment.
GDIT argued that the Navy failed to conduct meaningful discussions because it failed to identify GDIT’s assumption in the initial proposal that the agency would provide the parts and tools needed for preventative maintenance and repairs. But GAO found that the Navy had explicitly stated in an evaluation notice that GDIT’s assumption about the government providing parts and tools was incorrect.
GDIT also contended that the Navy should have reopened the discussions after its revised proposal had introduced new deficiencies. But agencies are not required to reopen discussions to afford an offeror an additional opportunity to revise its proposal where a weakness or deficiency is first introduced in a company’s revised proposal. The Navy specifically put offerors on notice that revised proposals should address the solicitation amendments. If GDIT had been confused by the amendments, it should have sought clarifications about the amendments from the Navy.
GDIT is represented by Noah B. Bleicher, Carla J. Weiss, Matthew L. Haws, Marc A. Van Allen, and Sati Harutyunyan of Jenner & Block LLP. The intervenor, Leidos, is represented by James J. McCullough, Michael J. Anstett, Christopher Bell, and Katherine L. St. Romain of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP as well as J. Scott Hommer, III, Rebecca E. Pearson, Emily A. Unnasch, Christopher G. Griesedieck, and Taylor A. Hillman of Venable, LLP. The agency is represented by John McHugh and Libbi Finelsen of the Navy. GAO attorneys Sarah T. Zaffina and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
