The agency consolidated two predecessor contracts into a single solicitation. The protester had been the incumbent on the predecessor contracts and had submitted them as past performance references. The agency evaluated each contract separately, finding them merely relevant. The protester argued they should have been evaluated together and found to be very relevant. But GAO found that under the terms of the soliciaton, the agency was not required to consider the separate contracts together.
Integrated Finance & Accounting Solutions, LLC, GAO B-420526, B-420526.2
Background
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) posted an RFQ seeking financial analyst support services. The agency received quotations from Integrated Finance & Accounting Solutions (IFAS) and enGenuis Consulting Group. DISA awarded the contract to enGenuis. While IFAS had a superior past performance, DISA found the higher rating did not justify the IFAS’s price premium. IFAS protested.
Legal Analysis
Past Performance References
The RFQ consolidated two predecessor contracts. IFAS was the incumbent on those contracts and had submitted each as a past performance reference. DISA had found that each contract was merely relevant because they were smaller and lacked the total scope of the RFQ. IFAS argued that the agency erred in considering each contract separately. IFAS contended DISA should have considered the two efforts together in which case it would have found them very relevant.
But GAO noted that the RFQ stated that the agency could only combine past performance references if they were multiple orders under the same IDIQ contract. Here, IFAS’s incumbent contracts had not been issued under the same IDIQ. Accordingly, the agency’s evaluation had adhered to the terms of the solicitation.
enGenuis’s Past Performance
DISA assessed enGenuis a neutral past performance rating finding that it did not have much relevant experience. IFAS argued that enGenuis’s past performance was so minimally related to the requirement that it should not even have received a neutral rating. But GAO found the neutral rating reasonable. A neutral rating is appropriate when a vendor, like enGenuis, has a positive past performance record but a limited record of relevant past performance.
Best-Value Determination
IFAS alleged that DISA had “flattened” the evaluation criteria and turned what should have been a best-value tradeoff into a lowest-price technically acceptable procurement. GAO didn’t agree, noting the record showed the agency had carefully considered strengths and weaknesses and performed a best-value tradeoff.
IFAS is represented by Thomas A. Coulter or Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP. The intervenor, enGenuis, is represented by Jon D. Levin, Emily J. Chancey, and Nicholas P. Greer of Maynard Cooper Gale, P.C. The agency is represented by Kara Hong, Andriani Buck, LaTonya McFadden, and Susan Chagrin of the Defense Information Systems Agency. GAO attorneys Michael Willems and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
