After a sustained GAO protest, the agency took corrective action to reevaluate. As part of the corrective action, the agency re-staffed the evaluation team and prohibited them from considering the previous evaluation. The protester received fewer strengths after the reevaluation than it had after the first evaluation. The protester claimed the agency had failed to explain this discrepancy. The court, however, found that the protester was essentially arguing that that the agency should have considered the previous evaluation as part of the corrective action. The court reasoned that it was not going to fault an agency for a thorough corrective action that started from scratch. If the agency believed there was a problem with the initial evaluation, then it could reasonably disregard the previous evaluation.
Connected Global Solutions, LLC and American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier Group, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 22-292C
Background
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) issued an RFP for household goods relocation services. The RFP contemplated award of an IDIQ contract. Following a review of proposals and an initial round of discussions, TRANCOM established a competitive range with three offerors: Connected Global Solutions, LLC (CGSL), American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier Group (ARC), and HomeSafe Alliance.
TRANSCOM made an award to ARC. CGSL and HomeSafe filed GAO protests challenging the award. GAO sustained the protests, finding various problems with the evaluation. In response to GAO’s recommendations, TRANSCOM took corrective action to reevaluate proposals. The revaluation, however, was a thorough do-over. TRANSCOM re-staffed the evaluation team and prohibited the new team from considering previous evaluations.
Following the reevaluation, TRANSCOM awarded the contract to HomeSafe. CGLS and ARC then filed protests with the Court of Federal Claims.
Analysis
Corrective Action
CGSL argued that TRANSACOM had failed to explain why CGSL’s proposal had received fewer strengths after the reevaluation. The court noted CGSL was tacitly arguing that TRANSCOM should have considered the previous evaluation as part of the corrective action—indeed, perhaps TRANSCOM went a little overboard in disregarding the previous evaluation. The court, however, reasoned that it was not going to fault TRANSCOM for a thorough corrective action. Rather than risk the growing of tainted fruit, TRANSCOM decided to plant a new tree. As a matter of public policy, the court would rather commend agencies for taking thorough correct action. If errors occurred in the original evaluation, then the agency should establish a new team and tell them to disregard the previous evaluations.
Discussions
CGSL and ARC both alleged TRANSCOM conducted misleading or unequal discussions. They alleged TRANSCOM had left them with the impression that weaknesses in their proposals had been resolved, but then the agency treated these allegedly resolved weaknesses as if they were still extant. The court wasn’t convinced. The record did not show that TRANSCOM had continued to hold resolved weaknesses against the companies. Rather, TRANSCOM had found CGSL’s and ARC’s proposals acceptable but simply disadvantageous in the final evaluation. There was no problem with discussions.
Technical Evaluation of HomeSafe
CGSL and ARC both objected to the evaluation of HomeSafe’s technical proposal. CGSL argued that HomeSafe’s proposal contained inconsistencies regarding the use of subcontractors. ARC alleged HomeSafe failed to comply with portions of the PWS.
The court didn’t find these arguments compelling. CGSL’s objection accounted to subjective disagreement with the manner in which TRANSCOM assigned value. Disagreement is not enough to sustain a protest. ARC’s argument boiled down to a complaint about the detail in HomeSafe’s proposal. The court reasoned that the a proposal need not discuss every PWS requirement in painstaking detail.
Best Value Tradeoff
CGSL objected to the best value tradeoff. CGSL argued the agency was required to weigh all technical subfactors equally. But here, the agency had singled out some factors as determinative in the tradeoff.
Alas, the court did not see this as a problem. Just because the subfactors had equal weight didn’t mean that one offeror’s approach could not be more valuable than another’s. Equally important requirements do not translate to equally valuable approaches. While TRANSCO concluded that some features of HomeSafe’s proposal had a greater impact, that did not mean the agency had created a new weighting scheme for evaluation subfactors.
Misrepresentation
ARC claimed that HomeSafe should have been disqualified for making a material misrepresentation in its proposal. HomeSafe had stated that it had achieved FedRAMP High compliance. But publicly available information indicated HomeSafe had only achieved Moderate compliance.
The court agreed that HomeSafe’s representation was problematic. But a misrepresentation is only disqualifying if it is material—that is, if the agency relies on it in making a final award. Here, there was no evidence TRANSCOM had relied on this representation in making award to HomeSafe.
CGSL is represented by James Y. Boland, Michael T. Francel, Christopher G. Griesedieck, Taylor A. Hillman, Lindsay M. Reed, and Allison M. Siegel of Venable, LLP. ARC is represented by Kara M. Sacilotto, Tracye Winfrey Howard, Gary S. Ward, Cara L. Lasley, Jennifer Eve Retener, and Teresita A. Regelbrugge of Wile Rein, LLC. The intervenor, HomeSafe is represented by Craig A. Holman, Stuart W. Turner, Sonia Tabriz, Amanda J. Sherwood, Thomas A. Petit, Trevor Schmitt, and Nicole Williamson of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The government is represented by Elizabeth Anne Speck, Douglas K. Mickle, Patricia McCarthy, Brian M. Boynton and Mile K. Karson of the Department of Justice as well as Robert J. Depke, Todd P. Federici, Adam J. Kondelka, and Peter B. Ries of U.S. Transportation Command along with Ericka Whelan Retta and Aaron Weaver of the Air Force.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
