Summit Art Creations | Shutterstock

The protester argued it should have received a strength for its helpdesk and hotline experience that was relevant to the task order at hand. GAO failed to see how this was more than the solicitation requirements. Furthermore, the agency already had a helpdesk.

New Generation Solution, LLC, GAO B-422559.2; B-422559.3
  • Protest – The agency issued a task order for endpoint modernization services. The protester challenged the agency’s technical evaluation.
  • Project Management – The protester argued it deserved a strength for its helpdesk and hotline experience since it provided “rapid resolution of day-to-day service delivery issues.” GAO noted that the protester failed to explain how this merited a strength beyond the solicitation requirement. The record showed that the agency already had a helpdesk so a second one would not have benefitted the government.
  • Disparate Treatment – The protester alleged the agency disparately identified a strength in the awardee’s proposal while failing to do so in the protester’s. Specifically, the protester argued that both offerors proposed the “same project management methodologies.” The agency responded it identified a strength in the awardee’s proposal not simply for the number and type of methodologies included, but because of the overall approach. GAO sided with the agency. The awardee’s proposal included more details regarding its approach to accomplishing the solicitation requirements and contained a flowchart with specific tasks in a clearly delineated timeline.

The protester was represented by Taylor R. Holt, Emily Chancey, and W. Brad English of Maynard Nexsen, PC. The intervenor was represented by Gregory R. Hallmark, Tanner N. Slaughter and David S. Black of Holland & Knight LLP. The agency was represented by Colleen A. Eagan of DISA. Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.

— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor