Protest challenging the evaluation of proposals and the conduct of discussions is denied. The protester alleged the agency had mischaracterized its proposal and erroneously assigned a weakness due to that mischaracterization. GAO, however, found that the agency had not mischaracterized the protester’s approach and had appropriately assigned a weakness to that approach. The protester alleged the agency conducted misleading discussions because an evaluation notice indicated that the agency had assumed the protester’s approach would work. GAO found that the evaluation notice, which was worded as a counterfactual, did not assume that the approach would work and should not have misled the protester.
The Army posted an RFP seeking sustainment services for Stryker vehicles—a family of armored fighting vehicles. DynCorp International and General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) submitted proposals. The Army found that GDLS’s proposal represented the best value. GDLS received Outstanding ratings on the most important technical factors. The Army determined that GDLS’s technical superiority justified its higher price. DynCorp protested the award.
DynCorp challenged a weakness it received under the RFP’s management factor. The Army assigned a weakness because it concluded that if DynCorp was not able to meet its goal of hiring 90 percent of the incumbent workforce, then it may not be able to hire and train new personnel within the phase-in period. DynCorp believed the Army had mischaracterized its proposal as relying on hiring 90 percent of the incumbent workforce.
But GAO agreed with the Army. DynCorp stated in its proposal that it planned to hire 90 percent of the incumbent workforce. The Army expressed concern about this approach during discussions, asking DynCorp what the company would do if it could not hire 90 percent of the incumbent workforce. But DynCorp did not meaningfully address the Army’s concern. DynCorp still focused its approach on incumbent capture. The Army reasonably characterized DynCorp’s approach.
DynCorp also argued that the weakness it received for its incumbent capture approach was inconsistent with a strength it received for its approach to recruiting and hiring. GAO was not persuaded. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated for both their approach to providing qualified personnel and their more general staffing approach. It was reasonable for the Army to assess a strength for DynCorp’s staffing approach but a weakness for its phase-in schedule.
DynCorp alleged that the agency conducted misleading discussions by not properly notifying the company about its concerns with the 90 percent incumbent capture approach. The evaluation notice sent to DynCorp stated, “If the offeror does not realize at least 90% of an incumbent hire rates . . . then the offeror will have the risk of hiring new personnel, which increases the risk” of not meeting the phase-in schedule. DynCorp claimed that it was misled by this evaluation notice because it indicated an assumption that the 90 percent incumbent capture would succeed. Thus, DynCorp did not realize that its 90 percent incumbent plan was risky.
GAO rejected this argument, noting that the Army led DynCorp into the only area of its management proposal that had a weakness, indicating it had a concern about the firm’s ability to meet the proposed phase-in schedule if it could not hire 90 percent of incumbent staff. GAO found that the wording of the evaluation notice—“if the offeror is successful in their plan of retaining 90%”—as sufficiently clear and should not have misled the company into thinking that the Army assumed the capture goal would succeed.
Next, DynCorp claimed that GDLS failed to submit subcontractor information required by the RFP and thus should have been ineligible for award. GAO found that the GDLS had not, in fact, submitted all the required subcontractor information. But the RFP provided that the government “may reject” proposals that did meaningfully respond to instruction. Thus, the agency had the option, but not the obligation, to reject a proposal that failed to meet the submission requirements. GDLS ultimately provided the missing information through discussions. The Army’s evaluation was reasonable.
DynCorp further alleged that GDLS’s proposal failed to meet some of the RFP’s small business goals. The RFP, however, did not identify these goals as hard requirements. The Army, in fact, assigned several weaknesses to GDLS’s small business participation. Still, the Army had found that the GDLS achieved some person of each small business goal and thus was reasonably determined that while not ideal, GDLS’s small business participation was acceptable.
Lastly, DynCorp challenged the best value decision arguing that the Army had not provided enough detail to support its decision. GAO found that the record sufficiently documented the agency’s consideration of proposals. The source selection decision included a detailed comparison of the advantages of the proposal under each factor.
DynCorp is represented by Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan, Natalie Ludaway, Olivia L. Lynch, Eric Ransom, and Alexander Barbee-Garrett of Crowell & Moring LLP. The intervenor, General Dynamics Land Systems is represented by Noah B. Bleicher, Carla J. Weiss, Matthew L. Haws, and Satenik Harutyunyan of Jenner & Block, LLP. The agency is represented by Pamoline J. McDonald and Matthew R. Wilson of the Army. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
