Share:
The protester challenged the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals. GAO sustained several of these arguments, finding the agency had applied unstated criteria, unequally evaluated proposals, and overlooked aspects of the protester’s proposal.
Anika Systems, Inc., GAO B-422681.5; B-422681.6
- Protest – The protester, who was the incumbent, challenged the award of a task order to provide support services to USCIS. It asserted a myriad errors in the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals.
- Ratings Methodology – The protester argued that the evaluators had not considered how well the offeror understood the requirement in assigning ratings. Because the evaluators did not identify findings as either increasing or decreasing confidence, it was impossible to know how any given finding affected the confidence rating. GAO disagreed. Despite the lack of clarity, the protester could still ascertain which of the agency’s findings were positive and negative. Thus, GAO concluded the agency’s rating methodology was reasonable.
- Unequal Assessment of Quality – The protester asserted that the agency unequally evaluated the offerors’ plans for quality assessment. It claimed its proposal incorporated the same aspects for data quality as the awardee’s, but without “chunking the approach into subheadings.” The agency responded that the awardee’s proposal mentioned relevant terms multiple times. GAO found this was an inadequate response. The agency had not explained why the repetition of terms supported its evaluation.
- Potential Visualizations – The protester contended the agency employed an unstated evaluation criterion by requiring “innovative and creative” visualizations. The agency found that the protester’s proposal demonstrated familiarity with existing visualizations, but the agency “expected more innovation or creativity” beyond current government capabilities. GAO found this prejudicial. Non-incumbent offerors had no access to “existing visualizations.” Thus, such a requirement could only be applied to the protester as the incumbent. Furthermore, the agency offered no explanation why it considered the protester’s proposed visualizations as “existing visualizations.”
- Four Missed Findings – The protester claimed the agency failed to find that four features of its proposal would increase its confidence in performance “with little or no government intervention.” The agency responded that these four features “will require some government intervention.” GAO concluded the record provided no basis for the agency’s determination.
- Recommendation – GAO recommended that the agency reevaluate proposals and terminate the task order if necessary. Furthermore, it recommended that the protester be reimbursed for the costs of filing and pursuing the protest.
The protester was represented by Carla J. Weiss, Logan Kemp, and Annie Hudgins of Nichols Liu, LLP. The intervenor was represented by Daniel J. Strouse, Pablo Nichols, and Sam Van Kopp of Cordatis LLP. The agency was represented by Richard W. Postma of DHS.
Kenneth Kilgour and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
Share:
