Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of past performance is denied, where the solicitation stated that past performance would be considered as part of the responsibility determination, not as an evaluation factor, and where the solicitation did not require offerors to have specific experience the protester argued was necessary. GAO also denied grounds challenging the technical evaluation, finding the agency reasonably concluded that the awardee’s failure to fully address one requirement warranted a significant weakness, rather than a deficiency, because the proposal did address the area in general terms.
Trident Military Systems LLC protested the General Services Administration’s award of a contract for operations, maintenance and support for the F-16 mission tactics trainer training system support center to L3 Technologies Inc., challenging the technical and past performance evaluations.
First, Trident argued the agency failed to conduct a past performance evaluation under the past experience factor, as required by the solicitation. According to the protester, the past experience factor included a confidence assessment, which the protested interpreted as an evaluation of the quality of past performance. The protester also cited language in the solicitation stating that an offeror who had not successfully performed comparable PWS tasks would not be considered technically acceptable and would not be considered for award. In response, the agency argued that past performance was not an evaluation factor.
The solicitation stated that GSA would review FAPISS to make a past performance responsibility determination but that past performance was not a formal evaluation factor. Therefore, GAO found the agency’s interpretation more reasonable. To the extent there was any ambiguity, GAO found it was patent and therefore Trident was required to challenge it prior to the deadline for proposals.
Next, Trident argued the agency nonetheless should have found the awardee’s proposal unacceptable under this factor, because L3 lacked recent and relevant experience with the flight simulators to be provided. In response, the agency explained the protester incorrectly assumed the solicitation required this experience. Instead, the agency stated it sought similar experience and reasonably concluded the awardee demonstrated this experience. GAO agreed that the solicitation did not require the specific experience asserted by the protester nor state that a lack of such experience would render a proposal unacceptable. Rather, the solicitation stated the agency must have confidence in the offeror’s ability to complete projects similar in size, scope, and duration.
Next, the protester argued the agency should have assessed L-3’s proposal a deficiency for its failure to demonstrate a coherent methodology for flight simulator software and hardware concurrency, which the protester argued is the primary contractual requirement. In response, the agency explained it assessed a significant weakness instead of a deficiency—which would have resulted in the rejection of the proposal as technically unacceptable—because the proposal demonstrated some understanding of the requirement, even though L3 only generally described its approach for achieving concurrency. Contrary to the protester’s assertion, the agency argued L-3 did not omit the requirement entirely. Further, the agency argued that while concurrency is important, it is not “the requirement.”
GAO found the assessment of a significant weakness, rather than a deficiency, to be reasonable. As the agency explained, L3’s proposal discussed its proposed approach for concurrency and concurrency management in a general manner, but without specific details, the agency concluded that it demonstrated some understanding while failing to describe its approach in detail. GAO also found the assessment of an overall acceptable rating to the technical approach factor to be reasonable, as the agency concluded that other strengths offset the weakness in this area.
Finally, Trident argued the agency converted the best-value tradeoff scheme to lowest-priced, technically acceptable when it ignored Trident’s technical superiority in favor of L-3’s lower price. The protester argued the agency failed to explain how Trident’s significantly higher-rated technical approach did not outweigh L3’s price, nor why L-3’s price was worth the level of risk associated with the significant weaknesses assessed to its proposal.
In response, the agency explained that it considered the protester’s technical superiority, but found that the added value did not justify a $15.6 million price premium, because L-3’s proposal demonstrated an acceptable level of technical competency. The agency also considered and accepted the increased risk. GAO sided with the agency, finding no evidence it placed undue emphasis on price or ignored the findings of the technical evaluation.
Trident Military Systems LLC is represented by Steven J. Koprince, Matthew P. Moriarty, John M. Mattox II, and Haley E. Claxton of Koprince Law, LLC. L3 Technologies Inc. is represented by Kevin P. Mullen, W. Jay DeVecchio, and James A. Tucker, Morrison & Foerster LLP, for L3 Technologies, Inc. The government is represented by Angelina Calloway, General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Young H. Cho and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.