Protest objecting to the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied. GAO found the agency’s evaluation reasonable. The proteste’s proposal was not well-written; it was rife with internal contradiction and ambiguities. What’s more, the agency reasonably found the protester’s oral presentation to be disjointed and difficult to understand.
Background
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted an RFP seeking a contractor to manage its hybrid computing environment. DHS received proposals from several offerors, including General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT) and Perspecta Engineering. DHS invited GDIT and Perspecta to make oral presentations.
During the presentations, DHS determined that GDIT did not understand the soilclitaiton’s requirement for a dashboard that displayed purchasing and ordering under the contemplated contract. DHS held discussions and received revised proposals.
Following the evaluation of revised proposals, DHS awarded the contract to Perspecta. DHS found that GDIT’s technical proposal was not well-written and contained internal contradiction and ambiguities. Moreover, the company’s oral presentation had been disjointed and difficult to understand. GDIT protested.
Legal Analysis
- GDIT’s Proposal Was Not Well-Written – GDIT objected to the evaluation of its technical approach, alleging that DHS had focused on inconsequential elements and made findings that were immaterial. GAO found that the record supported the agency’s less-than-impressed assessment. Various portions of GDIT’s proposal were conflicting and confusing. It was GDIT’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal.
- Evaluation of Oral Presentation Was Reasonable – GDIT complained that DHS had been too focused on its oral presentation when the presentations had been overtaken by subsequent discussions and proposal revisions. GAO, however, reasoned that the solicitation had an oral presentation factor and specifically contemplated evaluation of the offeror’s ability to articulate complex technical concepts. DHS had found GDIT’s oral presentation disjointed and confusing. Subsequent proposal revisions did not “overtake” this finding.
- Agency Was Not Required to Label Weaknesses – GDIT contended that these discussions were not meaningful because DHS failed to label identified weaknesses as relative weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies. GAO disagreed. The agency only had to identify areas of concern during discussions. It did not need to label them as weaknesses or deficiencies.
GDIT is represented by Noah B. Bleicher, Carla J. Weiss, Moshe B. Broder, and Scott E. Whitman of Jenner & Block. The intervenor, Perspecta, is represented by Kevin P. Connelly, Kelly E. Buroker, and Jeffrey M. Lowry of Vedder Price PC. The agency is represented by Peter G. Hartman and Roger A. Hipp of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
