Protest challenging strengths assigned to the awardee is sustained. The protester argued that the agency assigned strengths to the awardee that were either based on unstated criteria or provided no relevant benefit. GAO agreed with the protester, finding that the agency’s rationales for these strengths were more attenuated than the most delicate gossamer.
The Army issued a solicitation seeking services in support of it Cybertropolis Technology Environment Platform, a platform that allows DoD and its partners to conduct training and research in emerging technology areas. Nine offerors, including IAP Worldwide Solutions and IDS International Government Services, submitted proposals. The Army awarded to the contract to IDS. The Army found that while IDS had a higher price than IAP, it had a technical approach that was superior IAP’s. IAP protested.
IAP first argued that the Army has unreasonably credited IDS with a strength under the solicitation’s management plan element. The Army found that IDS had a demonstrated ability to recruit employees because it been able to recruit local staff on a contract performed in Afghanistan. But IAP argued that recruiting staff in Afghanistan had no relevance to recruiting cyber professionals in the United States.
GAO found that the Army had not documented or meaningfully explained why the recruitment of local Afghan staff on an unexplained contract in Afghanistan had any bearing on IDS’s ability to recruit highly qualified cybersecurity professionals with security clearances in Indiana.
Perhaps realizing that this strength was unwarranted, the Army attempted to downplay it by arguing that the strength did not play a role in the source selection process. But GAO found the agency actually cited the experience recruiting Afghan officials as a key discriminator between proposals.
Next, IAP challenged a strength assigned to IDS’s subcontracting plan. The Army had awarded IDS a strength for proposing to perform all of the contract itself without subcontractors. IAP argued that this amounted to the application of unstated criteria.
Again, GAO found that the Army had failed to explain why 100 percent self-performance warranted a strength. IDS’s proposal did not cite any efficiencies stemming from this approach. The SSA had found that IDS’s approach would minimize reporting requirements to the government. But it was not clear what this meant. Subcontractors in federal procurement are not in privity with the government and do not report to the government. Rather, the prime contractor is responsible for reporting to the government just as it would be if there were no subcontractors.
