Protest that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria is denied, where the solicitation established the agency would evaluate an offeror’s experience with the specific requirement, not with general services that were only generally similar in nature. GAO also found the agency did not unreasonably ignore the experience of some of the protester’s proposed managers, because there was no indication in the proposal they would train field employees or perform the requirements.
Chloeta Fire LLC protested the Forest Service’s establishment of multiple blanket purchase agreements for wildland fire photography and videography services. Chloeta alleged the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria, unreasonably ignored some of its employees’ experience, and improperly evaluated its past performance references.
First, Chloeta argued the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria when it evaluated its proposal under the organization experience factor. The RFQ provided that proposals would be evaluated based on whether vendors could show they had performed demonstrated and frequent work that was similar in size and scope. According to Chloeta, this limited the agency’s consideration to whether a vendor had general experience providing photography or videography services, and therefore the agency unreasonably found that the protester lacked specific experience photographing or video-recording wildland fires.
However, GAO found the RFP stated the agency would evaluate an offeror’s experience performing similar photography and videography services, which it defined as photographing and video-recording wildfires or prescribed fires burning in woodlands and rangelands, as well as photographing and video-recording firefighters engaged in fire suppression efforts. Therefore, it was reasonable for the agency to look for specific experience photographing or video-recording wildfires and not simply general photography or videography services. While Chloeta asserted that filming weddings or sporting events qualified as similar experience, GAO found this argument amounted to general disagreement with the agency’s judgment.
Next, Chloeta argued the agency unreasonably ignored some of its employees’ experience during the evaluation. Specifically, Chloeta argued that its project manager has extensive experience photographing wildland fires and its post-production manager has extensive experience providing wildfire videography services. According to Chloeta, the agency should have considered this experience because the employees were listed with their job titles.
In response, the agency argued that it properly ignored these employees’ experience because they were proposed to work as managers who would oversee operations from the firm’s headquarters, not photographers or videographers in the field. The agency concluded that Chloeta’s proposal did not demonstrate that its photographers and videographers had experience related to the duties to be performed under the contract. The agency noted that most of Chloeta’s photographers and videographers had experience with studio photography, sporting events, weddings, and real estate.
Further, Chloeta’s quotation did not contain any examples of wildfire photographs or videos, or suggest the project manager or post-production manager would train or closely supervise employees in the field. Accordingly, GAO found the agency’s rating of “no confidence” was reasonable. While Chloeta asserted that the agency should have assumed that its proposed would have direct roles in capturing wildland fire photographs and videos from remote locations, the agency was not required to infer that detail.
Next, Chloeta argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance information. According to Chloeta, the agency ignored positive reviews and unreasonably focused on the fact that Chloeta’s experience did not directly relate to wildland fire photography and videography. The agency assigned Chloeta ratings of “unknown confidence” for its past performance, because Chloeta’s past performance was related to firefighting generally, as opposed to being specifically related to wildland fire photography or videography.
GAO found this reasonable. None of the referenced contracts were viewed as similar in type, scope, or complexity because Chloeta did not provide wildland fire photography or videography services under any of them. For example, Chloeta’s referenced contracts show that it has supplied initial firefighting attack crews, provided fire staffing services, and developed wildland fire management plans. While Chloeta noted that it delivered superior performance on each of its referenced contracts, GAO noted the solicitation stated the agency would evaluate each vendor’s past performance on similar contracts, not perform a general evaluation of performance quality.
Chloeta Fire LLC is represented by Steven J. Koprince, Matthew P. Moriarty, Shane J. McCall, and Nicole D. Portroff of Koprince Law, LLC. The intervenors are represented by Stuart Palley, for Stuart Palley Photography; Kari Greer, for Kari Greer Photography; Dave Mills, for Dave Mills Photography; and Kristen Honig, sole-proprietor, pro se. The government is represented by Elin M. Dugan, Department of Agriculture. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton, and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
