The protester alleged that questions the agency asked offerors after oral presentations amounted to discussions. What’s more, the protester argued, because the agency had not addressed deficiencies or weaknesses when asking these questions, it had failed to hold meaningful discussions. GAO rejected the argument. The questions asked following presentations were not discussions. The solicitation provided that these questions were not intended to address concerns with proposals. Rather, offerors’ answers to the questions would be made part of their proposals. Given the nature and timing of the questions in the evaluation process, they could not have constituted discussions.
Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc.—dba Paragon Investigations, GAO B-420908 et al.
Background
The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued two solicitations seeking background investigation services. Award would be made to two offerors whose proposals represented the best value. The solicitation provided that if a proposal was acceptable after an initial evaluation, the offeror would be invited to give an oral presentation to address the solicitations’ technical capability factor. The solicitations stated that at the conclusion of the presentation, offerors would respond to standardized questions.
Four offerors, including Paragon Investigations, submitted proposals. DCSA invited Paragon to make an oral presentation, where the agency asked questions. DSCA, however, ultimately determined that Paragon’s proposal was technically unacceptable. DSCA excluded Paragon from the competitive range. Paragon protested, challenging its exclusion.
Analysis
Discussions
Paragon argued the question sessions following the oral presentation amounted to discussions. Paragon reasoned that although the agency held discussions after the presentation, the discussions were not meaningful because the agency didn’t address a deficiency and significant weaknesses in Paragon’s proposal.
But GAO did not think the questions amounted to discussions. The solicitations made it clear that these responses were not reflective of the proposal but would be incorporated into proposals; thus, the questions were part of the proposals, not discussions. Moreover, the agency asked these questions before it had even evaluated proposals. Consequently, the questions could not have been directed at flaws the agency had not yet identified.
Deficiency Assessed to Paragon
Paragon objected to a deficiency it received for proposing fewer units of work than the solicitation had estimated. Paragon maintained the agency had indicated while answering offorers’ questions that the estimated units of work were highly speculative. Thus, Paragon reasoned, the agency should not have relied on those estimates in evaluating Paragon’s proposal.
GAO, however, found that the agency had not necessarily disclaimed its unit of work estimates in the solicitation. Rather, DSCA had only stated that the estimates for out years were speculative, but the agency never said offerors should not rely on the base year estimates.
Disparate Treatment
Paragon alleged various instances of disparate treatment. GAO rejected all of Paragons arguments, finding that the agency had not treated offerors unequally, or that Paragon had effectively abandoned its arguments.
Paragon is represented by Scott F. Lane, Katherine S. Nucci, and Jayna Marie Rule of Thompson Coburn LLP. Intervenor CACI is represented by Sharon L. Larkin and James M. Larkin of The Larkin Law Group LLP. The agency is represented by Matthew T. Donohue and Katie Oyler of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. GAO attorneys Kenneth Kilgour and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
