Protest challenging evaluation of proposals is denied. The protester alleged the agency’s price realism evaluation was too narrowly focused on the labor of key personnel. The court reasoned that unless a solicitation prescribes a particular methodology, the nature of price realism evaluation is within the agency’s sound discretion. Here, the solicitation did not prescribe a specific methodology, and the agency’s focus on the rates of key personnel was reasonable. The protester asserted that the agency erred in rejecting a proposed fee reduction. The court, however, determined that the agency had reasonably concluded that the reduction did not have clear nexus to performance risk. The protester claimed the agency disparately evaluated proposals. But the court found the proposals were substantively distinguishable.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) issued an RFQ seeking IT services. The RFQ contemplated award of hybrid fixed-fee, time-and-material, and labor hour contract.
After evaluating proposals, DARPA made award to SecuriGence, LLC. An unsuccessful vendor, Agile Bot Ii, LLC filed a protest with GAO. In response to the protest, DARPA took corrective action to conduct exchanges and reevaluate quotations.
While DARPA was conducting exchanges, Agile Bot asked the agency if offerors could make changes to their proposed base fee. DARPA stated that offerors could reduce the fee so long as the reduction had a clear nexus to contract risk.
Agile Bot submitted a revised quotation, which reduced the fee related to its Commodity IT Support Services costs. DARPA, however, decided to reject Agile Bot’s fee reduction. DARPA found that Agile Bot had not sufficiently demonstrated the nexus between the reduced fee and performance risk. Instead, DARPA considered Agile Bot’s price without the fee reduction.
DARPA once again awarded the contract to SecuriGence. The agency found that Agile Bot’s and SecuriGence’s proposals were extremely close in technical merit, but Agile Bot’s was more expense. DARPA decline to pay a price premium for Agile Bot’s proposal.
Agile Bot filed suit with the Court of Federal Claims, challenging the price realism evaluation, objecting to DARPA’s rejection of its fee reduction, and alleging disparate treatment. SecuriGence intervened. The parties moved for judgment on the administrative record.
Agile Bot asserted that the price realism evaluation was flawed. In assessing realism, DARPA had only analyzed the labor rates for key personnel. Agile Bot thought this review was too narrow. The company alleged that DARPA should have analyzed all of the offerors’ proposed labor rates.
The court, however, noted that unless the agency commits itself to a particular methodology in the solicitation, the nature and extent of price realism evaluation is within the agency’s sound discretion. In this case, the solicitation did not commit DARPA to any particular price realism methodology. Additionally, a direct comparison of the offerors’ labor rates found that all their rates were in-line with other vendors’ rates. Moreover, the key personnel rates were not the only criteria DARPA assessed. The agency considered several other cost elements in evaluating realism.
Next, Agile Bot complained that DARPA had unreasonably rejected its fee reduction. Agile Bot asserted that it had complied with the agency’s instructions and adequately explained the reduction.
But the agency found that Agile Bot’s argument amounted to disagreement with the agency’s judgment. The agency had found that Agile Bot had not sufficiently explained the nexus between the reduction and performance risk. The agency’s conclusions were not irrational. In any event, the court reasoned, if the court had erred in not accepting the fee reduction, Agile Bot had not been prejudiced. Even with the reduction, Agile Bot’s price still exceeded SecuriGence’s.
Agile Bot further claimed that DARPA should have found SecuriGence’s proposal unacceptable because the company had not proposed a secure storage facility as required by the RFQ. DARPA had noted a concern with SecuriGence’s storage facility, but it had only assessed a minor weakness for this concern. Agile Bot contended that SecuriGence had failed to comply with a material solicitation requirement and thus should have been assessed a deficiency.
The court reasoned that where an offeror has certified that it meets technical requirements, an agency is entitled to rely on that certification, and the offeror’s failure to comply with a proposal requirement is ordinarily considered a matter of contract administration. Here, SecuriGence had not proposed performance below the standards required by the RFQ. Instead, it had proposed to meet the storage facility requirement by making modification to its storage space. These modifications would be completed before contract execution. Under the circumstances a minor weakness was warranted; a deficiency was not.
Agile Bot also alleged that DARPA disparately evaluated proposals. Agile Bot claimed that DARPA credited SecuriGence for using a specialized staffing firm. Agile Bot alleged it had also proposed to use a specialized staffing firm, but had not received a similar credit.
The court, however, found that Agile Bot’s and SecuriGence’s proposals were not substantively indistinguishable. SecuriGence proposed a specific large staffing firm. Agile Bot proposed to use smaller firms but had provided no specifics about the companies it intended to work with.
Agile Bot is represented by Paul A. Debolt, Spencer Williams, Lindsay Reed, and Taylor Hillman of Venable, LLP. The intervenor, SecuriGence, is represented by David S. Black, Greg Hallmark, and Amy Fuentes of Holland & Knight LLP. The government is represented Bryan M. Byrd, Douglas K. Mickle, Martin F. Hockey, Jr. and Brian M. Boynton of the Department of Justice as well as Christinalynn E. McCoy and Geraldine Chanel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
