Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation and alleging bias is denied. The protester objected to weaknesses assigned its proposal. GAO found the weaknesses were warranted; the proposal lacked detail, and the proposed key personnel lacked experience. The protester also contended that one of the evaluators was biased and had “blacklisted” the protester. GAO found nothing to indicate bias. What’s more, the evidence the protester provided to show bias was hearsay that failed to rebut the presumption that government official act in good faith.
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program was created by Congress in 1982 to increase the participation of small businesses in federally funded research and development. Certain federal agencies are required to award a portion of their research efforts to small businesses. The SBIR program has three phases. Under phase I, firms compete for an award to test a certain concept. In phase II, firms submit proposals to further develop their concept. And in phase III, they obtain funding to develop products conceived in phases I and II into commercial products.
The Navy issued a broad agency announcement (BAA), seeking phase I SBIR proposals for development of a human-machine interface that could minimize the amount of equipment carried by a warfighter. Twenty-seven applicants, including Squire Solutions, Inc., submitted proposals. The Navy did not select Squire’s proposal, finding that its proposal offered limited innovation with little detail addressing broader technical challenges. Squire protested.
Squire challenged a weakness it received for lack of detail. Squire argued that any criticism for lack of detail was more appropriate for a phase II or III proposal, but not for phase I, which is all about developing a solution. GAO was unconvinced. The BAA required offeror to submit an explicit detailed description of the their phase I approach. While Squire disputed the amount of detail the Navy expected, that disagreement failed to show the evaluation was unreasonable.
Squire also challenged a weakness it received for failure to demonstrate experience of its key personnel. Squire did not dispute that the proposal key personnel lacked experience; rather, Squire argued that the agency should have also considered the experience of the non-key support staff. GAO found that the Navy was not required to overlook the inexperience of the principal personnel merely because of the qualifications of supporting staff.
Aside from its technical challenges, Squire contended that one the evaluators was biased against the company and actively tried to prevent it from receiving the award. In support of this allegation, Squire submitted declarations from two individuals who were allegedly told by other individuals that the evaluator had it out for Squire.
But GAO found that the Navy had conducted a detailed investigation of Squire’s allegations and found no evidence of bias. The contracting officer gathered information from all the evaluators. The contracting officer concluded that the alleged biased individual was one of five evaluators who did not control or direct the others. What’s more, this allegedly biased evaluator’s evaluation was consistent with the other evaluators and did not, on its face, reflect bias.
GAO further noted that the declarations Squire submitted were not based on first-hand knowledge and did not even identify people with first-hand knowledge. These unsupported declaration were not enough to rebut the presumption that government officials act in good faith.
Squire is represented by Alan Grayson. The agency is represented by Hilary A.H. Spadaccini of the Navy. GAO attorneys Louis A. Chiarella and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
