beeboys | Shutterstock

Protest challenging the award of three task orders to the same awardee is denied. The protester alleged that the agency had an undisclosed preference for awarding all three task orders to one contractor. GAO found that no such preference was evident. The protester argued that the award of three task order constituted improper bundling of small business requirements. But GAO found that this was really an untimely challenge to the solicitation. The protester asserted the agency disparately evaluated proposals; GAO found that the different ratings were grounded in differences between the proposals. The protester challenged strengths assigned to the awardee; GAO reasoned that the protester’s arguments amounted to disagreement with the agency’s judgment. The protester challenged a weakness assigned to its proposal for not discussing “modeling lethality.” The protester argued this was unstated criteria because the solicitation did not specifically require modeling lethality. GAO, however, reasoned that the solicitation required offerors to address a “weapons kill chain” and that this requirement naturally included modeling lethality.

The Army issued three solicitations for support of the agency’s Software, Simulation, Systems Engineering & Integration (S3I) directorate. These solicitations were issued to holders of the GSA’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services small business IDIQ contract. The first solicitation, called the HWIL SoS solicitation, sought expertise to develop and enhance the current suite of digital simulation. The second, the HWIL Missile solicitation, sought software, engineering, and computer resource support. The third, the MSAM solicitation, sought the development and application of models for aviation and missile system analysis.

Sigmatech, Inc. and Torch Technologies, Inc.  submitted proposals in response to each of the three solicitations. The Army awarded all three task orders to Torch. Sigmatech filed a protest challenging the three awards.

Sigmatech first claimed that the Army’s decision to award three task order to Torch was influenced by the agency’s undisclosed preference to award the task orders to a single contractor. Sigmatech contended that Army preferred a single contractor based on the perceived benefits of administrative convenience.

Sigmatech alleged that this preference was evident from a consolidation decision the Army made before issuing the solicitations. Traditionally, the requirements for the S3I directorate had been provided through 13 task orders. The Army had decided to consolidate those 13 task order into six requirements. The three task orders at issue in this case concerned three of the six requirements. Sigmatech contended that because the Army had previously found that a reduction in the number of task order would be beneficial, the agency likely believed that even greater benefits could be achieved by awarding three of the task orders to a single contractor.

GAO, however, did not think that this somehow showed that the Army preferred to award all the task orders to a single offeror. Indeed, the Army had persuasively argued that awarding three task orders to the same contractor was not all that beneficial. The same amount of administrative work would be required for each task order regardless of the number of contractors. GAO found no basis to conclude that the consolidation decision expressed a preference to award the task orders to one contractor.

Sigmatech also alleged that the Army’s acquisition plan for the task orders had contained a note stating that the agency should consider limiting the ability of a single contractor to be awarded all the task orders. Sigmatech argued that that the Army had declined to adopt this suggestion and that this further evinced a preference to award all the task orders to a single contractor.

GAO, however, found that the Army’s decision to not adopt that suggestion was reasonable. The Army’s branch chief had decided not limit offerors’ ability to be awarded all the task orders because he was concerned that a limit on awards might lead offerors to focus their efforts on the solicitation with the highest estimated value. Even if this decision to not limit awards was unreasonable, GAO did not think it would provide the basis for a protest. Any objection to the number of the awards would have been a challenge to the terms of the solicitation, which should have been filed before the proposal deadline.

Sigmatech also contended that the awards to Torch constituted a de facto bundling of small business requirements. Under the Small Business Act, agencies are required to avoid bundling of requirements in a way that inhibits small business participation. But GAO found that this argument was untimely. The solicitations did not contain any restrictions on an offeror’s ability to be awarded multiple task orders. Thus, it was clear from the terms of the solicitations that one offeror could be awarded all the task orders. If Sigmatech objected to this, it should have filed a protest challenging the solicitations before the proposal deadlines.

Sigmatech next argued that the Army should have evaluated whether Torch’s technical approach would be affected by the company receiving all three task orders. Sigmatech noted that there was a possibility that resources Torch had identified in one proposal would be unavailable because they had been identified in other proposals.

GAO, however, reasoned that the solicitation did not affirmatively state that the Army would assesses whether performance would be affected by the award of other task orders. Moreover, while Torch’s proposals identified some of the same subcontractors and facilities, Sigmatech had not explained why any of these resources would be unavailable.

Sigmatech contended that the Army disparately evaluated proposals when it assigned Torch a significant strength for its use of innovative management system, but did not assign a significant strength to Sigmatech for its management system. But GAO found that the Army had reasonably determined that Torch’s proposal offered benefits—like web-based access to real-time data—that Sigmatech’s did not.

With respect to the MASM solicitation, Sigmatech argued that the Army had erred in assign a weakness to its proposal based on undisclosed evaluation criteria. The solicitation required offerors to discuss the components necessary to model and analyze “the entire weapon systems kill chain.” The Army assigned Sigmatech a weakness under this criterion because its discussions failed to discuss “modeling lethality.” Sigmatech argued that the solicitation had not clearly stated that modeling lethality was included in the criterion.

GAO concluded that the weakness was not based on unstated criteria. The goal of a weapon system kill chain identified in its title—to kill. There was a reasonable nexus between modeling lethality and the requirement to address a weapon system kill chain.

In evaluating one of the task orders, the HWIL Missile order, the Army had found Sigmatech’s proposal technically unacceptable and thus eliminated it from the competitive range. Sigmatech argued that the Army had erred in assigning three deficiencies to its HWIL Missile proposal. The deficiencies were assigned for a lack of detail. Sigmatech argued that the Army had read its proposal too narrowly and ignored some of the details in its proposal. GAO, however, found that this argument amounted to disagreement with the Army’s evaluation conclusions.

Sigmatech further argued that the Army should not have eliminated its HWIL Missile proposal from the competitive range. Sigmatech reasoned that the Army had improperly concluded that its proposal could not be salvaged through discussions. But GAO noted that a proposal with significant information deficiencies may be excluded where the omitted information is needed to address fundamental requirements. Here, Sigmatech’s proposal omitted important information. While the company thought it could rectify these issues through discussions, that argument was just disagreement with the agency’s judgment.

Finally, Sigmatech argued that award decision in the HWIL SoS procurement improperly considered the potential cost savings associated with Torch’s technical approach even though that factor did not provide for such a consideration. GAO noted that generally, an award decision may consider cost savings arising from an offeror’s technical approach provided that it is an additional consideration in the tradeoff decision rather than the overriding factor. GAO found that the Torch’s cost savings were not considered as the overriding factor. Indeed, the savings were never quantified and were merely considered as an additional reason why Torch’s superior approach merited a cost premium.

Sigmatech is represented by Dennis J. Callahan, Jeffrey M. Chiow, Deborah N. Rodin, and Emily A. Wieser of Rogers Joseph O’Donnell PC. The intervenor, Torch, is represented by Roderic G. Steakley and Benjamin R. Little of Sirote & Permutt, P.C. The agency is represented by Jonathan A. Hardage, Deborah Muldoon, Vincent Ongjoco, and Wade L. Brown of the Army. GAO attorneys Jonathan L. Kang and John Sorrenti participated in the preparation of the decision.