jurgenfr | Shutterstock

Protest challenging the offeror’s elimination from the competition is denied. The agency found that the protester failed to demonstrate experience implementing an information system required by the RFP. The protester argued that the agency had ignored portions of its proposal that demonstrated the required experience. But the proposal portions cited by the protester simply restated words from the RFP that defined implementation but otherwise lacked sufficient detail. The protester also argued that the agency erred in finding that it failed to demonstrate experience modernizing a system. But GAO denied this protest ground because the protester did not challenge the agency’s specific findings.

The Air Force issued an RFP for an IDIQ contract for IT services. The RFP contemplated a tiered evaluation. First, the Air Force would ensure that offerors were properly certified for Capability Maturity Model Integration. Second, the Air Force would evaluate technical experience using a self-scored worksheet and technical narratives provided by the offerors. A proposal was acceptable under the technical experience factor when it attained 4200 points. Third, if proposals were technically acceptable, the Air Force would evaluate past performance.

InterImage Inc. submitted a proposal in response to the RFP. Its proposal made it past the second round of evaluation, but stalled at the second. The Air Force determined that InterImage’s technical experience only received 3500 points. The company was eliminated from the competition. InterImage protested, alleging that the Air Force failed to properly evaluate its technical experience.

Offerors were required to demonstrate experience in the design, build, testing and implementation of an information system. The Air Force concluded that while InterImage’s proposal contained sufficient design, build, and test experience, it did not demonstrate implementation experience. InterImage, however, contended that the Air Force ignored portions of its proposal that demonstrated implementation experience. The Air Force did not think those portions contained sufficient detail on implementation.

GAO agreed with the Air Force, nothing that while InterImage restated certain words from the RFP’s definition of implementation, it lacked specific detail demonstrating actual experience with implementation.

Indeed, GAO noted, the protest, as initially filed, did not specifically argue or cite to portions of the proposal that demonstrated this experience. Rather, InterImage just quoted a long section of the proposal, which purportedly demonstrated the implementation experience. This kind of general challenge amounts to mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation. While InterImage’s comments included more thorough arguments and proposal citation that discussed the claimed implementation experience, GAO found these arguments untimely. A protester must supply specific facts and arguments in support of its protest in the initial protest, not the comments.

The Air Force also found that InterImage had failed to demonstrate experience modernizing a legacy information system. In particular, the Air Force found that InterImage had not demonstrated experience porting an information system to a new hardware platform. GAO found that while InterImage’s filings argued that it had experience with some elements of modernizing an information system, the company did not challenge the Air Force’s determination that it failed to demonstrate experience porting a system. Thus, there was no basis for GAO to question the Air Force’s evaluation of that issue.

InterImage is represented by Scott A. Schipma and Brett A. Castellat of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The agency is represented by Lieutenant Colonel Ryan J. Lambrecht  and Alexis J. Bernstein of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Evan C. Williams and Amy B. Pereira participated in the preparation of the decision.