Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now

Lost in Cyberspace: Late-Is-Late Rule Precudes Consideration of Protester’s Quarantined Proposal • Raytheon Loses Remand Fight Over Level 1 Cost Penalties, But Government Waived Right to CAS Penalties • Why Not Bidding—and Not Protesting Early—Doomed This Challenge to an Award • “I Could Have Competed” Won’t Cut It: COFC Requires Showing Contractor Could Perform Work if it Wants to Protest Solicitation Terms • Revolutionary FAR Overhaul Update: Rulemaking Phase Begins with the Issuance of Four Proposed Rules

Published on December 10, 2024 • Law

Protester Alleged a Disparate Evaluation. GAO Didn’t See It.

Dmitry Demidovich | Shutterstock

The protester claimed the agency disparately evaluated its quotation relative to the awardee's. But GAO denied, finding the protester's and the awardee's quotations were not similar. The awardee's quotation was highly detailed while the protester's had significant gaps.

H2K Solutions, Inc., GAO B-422790; B-422790.2; B-422790.3; B-422790.4

Protest - The agency issued a solicitation for information technology management services. The protester challenged the evaluation of technical quotations and eventual award.
Disparate Treatment of Staffing Plan - The agency found the protester's staffing plan "flawed and insufficient" for failing to map staffing hours or percentage of time to the individual statement of work tasks. The protester claimed disparate treatment because both the protester and the awardee's staffing plans proposed the exact same level of effort, but only the awardee was credited. GAO found the awardee's quotation was highly detailed while the protester's had many gaps. The protester failed to demonstrate the different evaluations were due to differences in the quotations.
Technical Management Plans - The agency expressed concern that the protester referenced utilizing technologies that were outdated and not in the statement of work (SOW) while failing to discuss certain technologies that were in the SOW. The protester argued this was unreasonable. The protester contended it had suggested the outdated tools in addition to the tools mentioned in the SOW; it had not proposed to replace the SOW tools. But GAO sided with the agency. The protester explicitly mentioned utilizing outdated tools while not mentioning the tools from the SOW. It was the protester's duty to clearly articulate its approach.

The protester was represented by Alexander B. Ginsberg, Katherine L. St. Romain, and Michael J. Anstett of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The intervenor was represented by Adam A. Bartolanzo, C. Peter Dungan, Alfred M. Wurglitz, Lauren S.
Fleming, and Cash W. Carter of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. The agency was represented by Melanie T. Dasher of DHS. Heather Weiner and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.

-- Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.