The protesters in this case argued in various ways that the agency ignored the awardee’s weaknesses while failing to acknowledge the protesters’ strengths. In particular, one or the protesters contended that it should have received a strength for having the most detailed technical approach. GAO found the protester did indeed have a very detailed approach. The problem was that while this level of detail was nice, it didn’t provide any extra benefit to the agency. For the most part, GAO found that the protesters’ arguments simply amounted to disagreement with the agency’s evaluation conclusions.
Systems Implementers, Inc.; Transcend Technological Systems, LLC, GAO B-418963.5 et al.
Background
The Air Force posted an RFP seeking information technology services and subject matter expertise in enterprise architecture and engineering. The Air Force received eight proposals, including proposals from Systems Implementers, Inc. (SI), Transcend Technological Systems (TTS), and OM Group, Inc. (OMG). After an initial award, protests, and corrective action, the Air Force awarded the contract to OMG. SI and TTS protested.
Legal Analysis
OMG’s Weaknesses
SI and TTS both contended that the Air Force unreasonably ignored weaknesses assessed to OMG under a technical subfactor. The Air Force had found the weaknesses “minor” and easily correctable. TTS argued that in finding that these weaknesses minor, the Air Force had failed to adhere to the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. SI argued the Air Force had no basis for finding the weaknesses “minor.”
GAO rejected the protesters’ arguments. As to TTS’s argument, the solicitation allowed for a low risk rating even if an offeror had weaknesses. What’s more, contrary to TTS’s contentions, the solicitation allowed the Air Force to assess whether a weakness could be overcome with normal monitoring. Thus, the Air Force could reasonably determine that a weakness was correctable. With regard to SI’s argument, the record showed that the Air Force had considered the weakness and reasonably concluded that it presented a low risk.
SI’s and TTS’s Unacknowledged Strengths
SI and TTS both argued that the Air Force ignored strengths in their proposals. SI noted that the Air Force had found that its proposal had the most detailed technical approach. SI contended it should have received a strength for its level of detail. GAO concluded that while SI’s proposal was greatly detailed, this level of detail did not confer any extra benefit to the agency.
SI also alleged it should’ve received a strength for its approach moving the agency’s system into a cloud. SI reasoned that it was the incumbent and the agency was already in the process of implementing the approach SI had proposed. GAO noted that the agency was not actually implementing SI’s approach but was merely considering it as a path forward.
TTS argued that it should have received additional strengths for its experience managing data centers. But GAO found that while TTS had data management experience, this experience did not exceed the solicitation requirements in an advantageous way.
Disparate Treatment
Both SI and TTS asserted that the Air Force disparately evaluated proposals, assigning strengths to OMG but not assigning the protesters strengths for similar features. GAO reviewed each of these arguments and found that the features in OMG’s, SI’s, and TTS’s proposal were not substantivley indistinguishable. Rather, in each case, OMG had proposed a different and superior approach.
Price Evaluation
SI complained that instead of comparing labor rates to the rates on the incumbent contract, the Air Force had compared rates to an unrealistic, agency-created baseline.
GAO, however, noted that contrary to SI’s contentions, the Air Force had initially compared rates to the incumbent contract. But the solicitation included two new categories not included in the incumbent contract. Moreover, the Air Force found large variations between the offeros’ rates, including SI’s proposed rates, and SI’s incumbent rates. So the agency compared rates to a baseline the agency had created using market survey data. GAO found the price evaluation reasonable.
SI is represented by David S. Black, Gregory R. Hallmark, Amy L. Fuentes, and Danielle R. Rich of Holland & Knight. TTS is represented by J. Scott Hommer, III, Marcos R. Gonzalez, and Lindsay M. Reed of Venable LLP. The intervenor, OMG, is represented by Katherine B. Burrows, Matthew E. Feinberg, Jacqueline K. Unger, and Eric A. Valle of PilieroMazza. The agency is represented by Colonel Frank Yoon, Major Alissa J.K. Schrider, and Heidi M. Fischer of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
