Protest of agency’s evaluation and best value tradeoff is denied. The protester complained that award decision applied unstated criteria when it concluded the awardee represented a better “return on investment” because “return on investment” was not one of the stated criteria. But GAO found that the use of the term was innocuous. It was evident from the context, that the agency used the term as a figure of speech to refer to benefits expected from a technically-superior proposal.
Background
The Air Force issued a solicitation for engineering support for the “Medusa” system, which detects and tracks unpiloted aircraft. After reviewing five proposals, the Air Force awarded the contract to Leidos, Inc. concluding that its proposal represented an increased “return on investment.” An unsuccessful offeror, Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), protested.
Legal Analysis
- BAH Was Likely Not an Interested Party – GAO noted that BAH had failed to propose labor hours required by the solicitation. GAO reasoned this failure likely made BAH’s proposal unacceptable, negating any interest it had in the protest. BAH argued that this was just a post hoc reevaluation, and that the agency had already found its proposal acceptable. GAO reasoned BAH’s error was difficult to overlook but decided to consider the substance of BAH’s arguments anyway.
- Agency Properly Evaluated Leidos’ Response to Sample Problem – The solicitation required offerors to respond to a sample problem. BAH claimed the solicitation posed a general problem, but Leidos invented a specific scenario to address the problem. BAH did not believe Leidos’ answer fully responded to the problem. GAO begged to differ. The solicitation did not require offerors to provide a general approach. Rather, it asked them to address the problem creatively. In light of this latitude, GAO had no reason to question the evaluation of Leidos’s response.
- Agency Didn’t Apply Unstated Criteria – The award decision stated that Leidos represented a “better return on investment.” BAH argued the solicitation did not provide for an evaluation of which offeror represented the best return on investment, so the Air Force applied unstated criteria. GAO rejected the argument, finding that the reference to “return on investment” reflected a qualitative assessment of the benefits the agency would receive. It was a figure of speech, not a judgment about the income to be received from an actual investment.
BAH is represented by Kristen E. Ittig, Stuart W. Turner, and Anna L. Dykema of Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The intervenor, Leidos, is represented by J. Scott Hommer, III, Rebecca E. Pearson, Taylor A. HIllman, Christopher G. Griesedieck, Lindsay M. Reed, and Caleb E. McCallum of Venable, LLP. The agency is represented by Rebecca Tatum, Erika Whelan Rhetta, Isabell P. Cutting, and Sean B. Brady of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Michael Willems and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
