Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal is denied. The protester alleged the awardee had improperly indicated that some of its employees would be immediately available for the contract. GAO found that the agency could assume that the awardee would be able to make its own employees available. The protester contended that the awardee had exceeded the solicitation’s page limitations by submitting a transition plan with the track changes tool enabled. But the awardee’s transition plan conformed to the page when track changes was disabled. The protester further alleged the agency did not perform a price reasonableness analysis. The agency, however, had properly compared offerors’ prices to each other and the awardee’s price to the government estimate.
The Air Force awarded a task order for acquisition and financial support services to Tecolote Research, Inc. An unsuccessful offeror, MCR Federal, LLC, protested, challenging various aspects of the Air Force’s evaluation.
Under the solicitation’s technical expertise factor, offerors had to complete a staffing matrix. The matrix had an “availability” section where offerors rated the availability of employees on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a currently available employee and 5 an employee that would be assigned after award. MCR contended that Tecolote had wrongly assigned a 1 to some of it employees. Tecolote had stated that it planned to move some its employees from a different contract. MCR argued that Tecolote should have assigned these employees a 5 because they would only be assigned after award.
GAO didn’t buy MCR’s argument. There was nothing objectionable about coding current employees working on another contract as a 1. MCR had failed to show why the agency could not assume that Tecolote would be able to direct its own employees to the requirement upon award.
Next, MCR asserted that the agency had improperly found Tecolote’s ability to have all its staff available on day 1 a discriminator. MCRE contended that the solicitation’s personnel management factor was rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Accordingly, the ability to provide staff on day 1 should not have served as a discriminator.
GAO rejected this argument. While the personnel factor was rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, the technical experience factor required the agency to qualitatively assess proposals, and employee availability was one of the components the Air Force was supposed to evaluate under this factor.
MCR argued that the Air Force should have found Tecolote’s proposal unacceptable because its transition plan exceeded the five page limit prescribed by the solicitation. Tecolote had asked for and received permission to submit its final revised transition plan with the track changes tool enabled. With the tool enabled, Tecolote’s plan was six pages. MCR contended that with the track changed tool enabled, Tecolote was able to provide more information about its experience than other offerors.
GAO found no reason to question the acceptance of Tecolote’s transition plan. The Air Force viewed the transition plan without track changed enabled to confirm that it complied with the page limitations. And, in any event, MCR was not prejudiced by this supposed error. The transition plan requirement was a component of the personnel management factor, which was assessed on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. MCR had not shown that Telocote had received any additional credit by submitting a plan with the track changes tool enabled.
Lastly, MCR argued the Air Force failed to evaluate the reasonableness of Telocote’s price. But GAO found that the Air Force used two price analysis techniques identified in the FAR: (1) it compared to MCR’s price to Tecolote, and (2) compared Telocote’s price to the government estimate. Each of these methods was sufficient to find Telocote’s price reasonable.
MCR is represented by Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., J. Ryan Frazee, and William A. Roberts, III of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor, Tecolote, is represented by Richard B. Oliver and J. Matthew Carter of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Lieutenant Colonel John C. Degnan, Lawrence M. Anderson, and Malcolm L. Langlois of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Joshua R. Gillerman and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
