Protest objecting to agency’s technical and price evaluations is denied. The protester alleged the agency conducted misleading discussions. GAO found that the discussions had sufficiently identified the problems with the protester’s technical proposal. The protester also complained about a deficiency assessed to its technical approach, alleging that the agency had ignored portions of its proposal that made its approach viable. But GAO found the to the extent the protester’s approach was viable, it was not clearly explained in its proposal. Finally, the protester alleged that the agency’s failed to evaluate the reasonableness of the awardee’s proposed price. GAO found that other than comparing its own price to the awardee’s, the protester had not pointed to any specific portion of the awardee’s price that was unreasonable. Given the multiple deficiencies in the protester’s proposal, it could not serve as benchmark for assessing price reasonableness.
The Army issued a solicitation to holders of the agency’s Responsive Strategic Sourcing IDIQ contract. The solicitation contemplated award of a task order for logistics support of multiple intelligence capabilities, including aerial-based intelligence.
Adams Communication & Engineering Technology, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. The Army initially found that both companies’ proposals were technically unacceptable. The Army thus entered discussions providing each offeror with dozens of evaluation notices.
Following discussions, the Army found that Adams' revised proposal was still technically unacceptable due to multiple deficiencies. The Army awarded the contract to Leidos. Adams protested.
Adams alleged that it had been unreasonably assessed a deficiency for failing to meet the required flight hours of an execution example. The execution example required offerors to develop a solution with two sorties a day for a total of 140 flight hours over 10 days. In its initial proposal, Adams proposed 7.6 hours of flight time for each sorties. The Army assigned a deficiency finding that the 7.6 hour total was not adequately supported. The Army asked Adams in an evaluation notice to explain the assumptions of its approach. Adams submitted a revised a proposal that reduced its total flight time per sortie to 6.6 hours. The Army assigned a deficiency to the revised proposal because with 6.6 hours per sorties, Adams’ approach could not satisfy the required total of 140 flight hours over 10 days.
Adams contended that the Army had conducted misleading discussions. Adams argued that the Army had not informed it during discussions that a proposed flight time of less than 7 hours per mission was a problem; rather, the Army had only asked that Adams explain the basis for its calculations.
GAO, however, did not find the evaluation notice misleading. The evaluation notice sent to Adams did not suggest that the 7 hour per sortie required was flexible. In fact, the evaluation notice had restated the requirements for the execution example. Those requirements expressly advised Adams that the hypothetical problem was based on a 7 hour total mission fly time. GAO had no basis not find that the Army failed to conduct meaningful discussions.
Adams also argued that Leidos should have received a deficiency for its proposed solution to the execution example because it deviated from the parameters of the hypothetical scenario. Specifically, Adams alleged that Leidos had assumed the availability of certain items that were not listed in the parameters. GAO disagreed, finding that Adams had misinterpreted the scenario. The scenario at issue made it incumbent on each offeror to develop a viable solution accounting for certain parameters. Although the stated parameters did not explicitly mention the items that were part of Leidos’ approach, the parameters did not rule out the availability of those items.
Adams also challenged a deficiency it received for violating the rest requirements for pilots between missions. During discussions the Army had questioned Adams’ scheduling of pilots. In its revised proposal, Adams had reduced the number of pilots available. The Army found this reduction in pilots could violate the Army’s regulation requiring 12 hours of rest requirements for crew. Adams argued this deficiency was unwarranted because it ignored portions of its technical approach that indicated that the most rested crew members would support any new high value target missions.
GAO, however, found that to the extent Adams had proposed a method for ensuring adequate rest time, it was not evident in the revised proposal. It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal that clearly demonstrates compliance and allows for meaningful review by the agency.
Lastly, Adams alleged the Army failed to asses Leidos’s proposal for cost reasonableness. But GAO found that other than the difference in the offerors’ proposed costs, Adams had not pointed to any specific portion of Leidos’s proposal as unreasonable. GAO reasoned that given the multiple deficiencies in Adams’ proposal, it could not serve as a valid benchmark for assessing price reasonableness. In any event, GAO noted that award decision showed that the Army had actually evaluated Leidos’s costs for reasonableness.
Adams is represented by Scott F. Lane, Katherine S. Nucci, and Jayna M. Rust of Thompson Coburn LLP. The intervenor, Leidos, is represented by Paul F. Khoury, J. Ryan Frazee, Nicole E. Giles, and Nicholas Perry of Wiley Rein LLP. The agency is represented by Matthew R. Wilson and Justin D. Wilde of the Army. GAO attorneys Paula A. Williams and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.