One of the awardee’s past performance references did not return a past performance questionnaire (PPQ). The protester argued the awardee should have received a deficiency for the missing PPQ. But GAO said a third party’s failure to return a PPQ does not make a proposal deficient.
Zin Technologies, Inc., GAO B-422405, B-422405.2
- De Minimis Errors – The agency assessed weaknesses to the protester’s technical approach for a lack of clarity. The protester thought the weaknesses were unwarranted and that it had been penalized for trivial, typographical errors. GAO rejected the argument, finding the errors were not typographical. The protester had misidentified risks. This indicated a lack of understanding of the risk analysis process.
- Management Plan – The agency also assessed weaknesses to the protester’s management plan due to lack of clarity. The protester maintained it had addressed the management plan concerns during discussions. But GAO said the weaknesses were reasonable. The protester’s revised proposal suggested an unrealistic level of access to the protester’s management tools.
- Meaningful Discussions – The protester complained the agency did not identify its concerns with the protester’s proposal during discussions. GAO begged to differ. The agency had provided a point-by-point document that allowed the protester to improve its proposal. The problem was not the discussions; rather, the protester did not adequately respond to the agency’s concerns.
- Past Performance – The protester raised several objections to the evaluation of the awardee’s past performance. The protester complained that the agency evaluated a contract reference the awardee had not submitted. But GAO noted that the solicitation allowed the agency to collect and review past performance information from other sources. The protester also reasoned that one of the awardee’s references had not returned a PPQ, so the awardee’s proposal was deficient. GAO opined that the solicitation only required offerors to send PPQs to references. A proposal is not deficient because a third party didn’t timely return a PPQ. The agency was still able to evaluate past performance without the PPQ.
- Conflict of Interest – The protester alleged the awardee had an OCI because its major subcontractor, Leidos, was performing a related contract. But GAO found the protester had not presented the “hard facts” needed to prove an OCI.
The protester is represented by Jeffrey M. Chiow, Eleanor M. Ross, Timothy M. McLister, and Jordan N. Malone of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The awardee is represented by Douglas P. Hibshman, Keeley A. McCarthy, Dana Molinari, and Jung Hyoun Han of Fox Rothschild LLP. The agency is represented by Stephen T. O’Neal, MacAlister A. West, James P. Burke, and Kendall A. Grodek of NASA. GAO attorneys Michael P. Price and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
