The solicitation stated the agency would evaluate prices to determine whether they reflected an understanding of requirements. But as this protester learned, that understanding-of-requirements language doesn’t necessarily mandate a realism analysis.
Leidos Inc.; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., GAO B-421524 et al.
- Price Realism – The solicitation stated the agency would evaluate prices to determine they reflected an understanding of requirements. The protester said this language required a price realism evaluation. GAO disagreed. The protester read the “understanding” language out of context. The solicitation stated the agency might evaluate price realism but did not require a realism analysis. Moreover, the solicitation did not state quotations would be eliminated due to unrealistic prices. A realism evaluation is only required when the solicitation states a proposal will be rejected for low prices.
- Experience with Same Agency – The protester contended it should have received the highest possible rating under the experience factor because it had performed a similar contract for the same agency. GAO rejected the argument. There’s no requirement to rate a vendor higher for agency-specific experience. The agency reasonably found the agency-specific experience matched only a portion of the requirements.
- Prejudice – The protester objected to a negative rating it received under the technical and management approach factor. GAO reasoned even if the agency erred in assessing the negative rating, the protester hadn’t been prejudiced. The negative finding was one of six that decreased confidence in the protester’s approach. Removing the erroneous rating would not improve the protester’s position.
- Disparate Treatment – The protester asserted the agency credited the awardee for proposing adaptive communications and outreach but didn’t similarly credit the protester for proposing the same thing. But GAO found the protester’s and vendor’s approaches to adaptive communications and outreach were not the same. The awardee’s approach was more thorough and detailed.
Leidos is represented by Paul F. Khoury, J. Ryan Frazee, and W. Benjamin Phillips, III of Wiley Rein LLP. Booz Allen is represented by Gary J. Campbell, Alexander O. Canizares, Joshua R. Tuner, and Jedidiah Blake of Perkins Coie LLP. The awardee, SAIC, is represented by Daniel R. Forman, Louis A. Chiarella, William B. O’Reilly, and Zariah T. Altman of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by Justin M. Wakefield, Gregory J. Matherne, Meghan M. Baka, and Richard L. Hatfield of the Department of Treasury. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
