The protester complained the agency didn’t evaluate references from its proposed subcontractors. The COFC rejected the argument. The solicitation referred to an “offeror’s team,” but when read in context, the word “team” did not encompass subcontractors.
VSolvit, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 22-1913
- “Offerors’ Team” – The protester claimed the agency unreasonably ignored experience and past performance references from its subcontractors. The past performance factor referenced an “offeror’s team.” The protester reasoned this meant the agency would consider references from subcontractors. While “team” is often used to refer to contractors, the court found it's not a term of art. The protester ignored the context of the whole solicitation. The solicitation only made one reference to the “offeror’s team.” The rest of the solicitation asked for references from “your company” or the “offeror’s company.” This should have indicated the agency would only consider references from the prime contractor.
- Ambiguity – The court noted the reference to an “offeror’s team” created an arguable ambiguity. Even so, the court opined the ambiguity was patent. The protester should’ve challenged the terms of the solicitation and not waited until after award.
- Prejudice – Even if the court agreed with the protester, the protester had not been prejudiced. The only remedy here would be to allow the protester to submit a revised proposal. But the protester itself did not have relevant experience and past performance without relying on its subcontractors. Thus, the protester would not have a chance at award anyway.
- Weaknesses – The protester objected to weaknesses assessed to its proposal. The court found the weaknesses were warranted. The protester had not demonstrated an understanding of certain requirements, and its proposal was vague.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
COFC - VSolvit