The evaluation team could not reach consensus ratings. The SSA adopted the ratings from the sole dissenting evaluator. GAO didn’t see a problem with this.
IT Concepts, Inc., GAO B-422152. B-422152.2
- Evaluation – The three-person evaluation team could not reach consensus ratings. One member dissented from the ratings assessed by the other two. The contracting officer adopted the evaluation of the dissenting member.
- Awardee’s Past Performance – The majority assigned the awardee a “some confidence” past performance rating. The dissenting evaluator gave the awardee a high confidence rating. The protester argued the SSA should’ve addressed the uncertainty between the evaluators. But GAO noted both the majority and the dissent had identified several strengths and no weaknesses in the awardee’s past performance. What’s more, the record demonstrated the SSA had considered the uncertainty presented by the split evaluation and reasonably concluded the awardee’s past performance merited a higher rating.
- Protester’s Weaknesses – The dissenting evaluator identified several weaknesses in the protester’s quotation. The protester challenged them. GAO rejected the arguments. The weaknesses were reasonable. The protester had failed to address requirements, did not include a required quality assurance plan, and omitted a required accessibility conformance report.
- Additional Strengths – The protester said its quotation deserved additional strengths. GAO said the agency reasonably determined the putative features of the protester’s quote did not exceed the solicitation’s requirements.
The protester is represented by Damien C. Specht, James A. Tucker, and Victoria Dalcourt Angle of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The agency is represented by Adam Humphries of the Department of Agriculture. GAO attorneys Nathaniel S. Canfield and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
