Protest challenging the technical evaluation is sustained in part, where the agency lacked a rational basis for weaknesses assigned to the protester’s proposal. In one area, ODRA found the protester addressed the factor the agency concluded was absent. In a second area, while the protester’s proposal failed to address a required office task, the assessed weakness concluded that the error reflected a broad misunderstanding of funding structure, FAA laws, regulations, and policies, which ODRA considered irrational.
Aquila Fitness Consulting Systems Ltd. protested the Federal Aviation Administration’s award of a contract to operate a fitness center to Strive Well-Being Inc., challenging the evaluation of its proposal and arguing the agency treated offerors unequally.
First Aquila challenged a weakness regarding a solicitation requirement that the contractor collect fees from agency employees, make copies of checks, and deposit them into an FAA account. The evaluators concluded that Aquila did not expressly state it would comply with this requirement. However, ODRA found that the proposal affirmatively promised that funds would be deposited. While the agency evaluators found the language vague, ODRA disagreed, noting that the solicitation instructions directed offerors to be concise. Further, ODRA found the awardee had addressed the requirement in a similar manner, but was not assessed a weakness.
Next, Aquila challenged the agency’s finding that it had not proposed a process for reporting membership and locker fees, revenue, and check collections. While ODRA found that the proposal did not expressly state how Aquila would manage this process, it also found the weakness irrational. While ODRA found that Aquila’s proposal failed to acknowledge an office task, the weakness stated the proposal reflected a broad misunderstanding of funding structure, FAA laws, regulations, and polices, which ODRA considered a leap.
ODRA also found the agency evaluators failed to explain their concerns about the cost of software the protester proposed to use. Further, the agency changed its rationale for this weakness during the protest proceedings, which ODRA discounted as an unreasonable post hoc explanation.
However, ODRA found that other weaknesses involving reporting and member recruitment efforts were supported by the record and a reasonable reading of the proposal. ODRA also found the agency reasonably assigned the proposal a weakness for failing to segregate proposed resumes into the two labor categories required by the solicitation, and a second weakness for proposing an individual who did not meet all the solicitation requirements.
ODRA also denied grounds arguing the agency failed to assess certain strengths to Aquila’s key personnel approach, finding that the agency had erred in assigning a rating that was higher than warranted, given the absence of strengths under this factor. Because addressing the alleged missing strengths would not raise the overall rating higher than its already inflated level, ODRA found any errors were not prejudicial.
Next, the protester argued the awardee had not performed work similar in size and scope to the requirement, and therefore did not warrant its past performance rating. ODRA rejected the argument about the size of the contracts, but considered the protester’s argument about the scope of the awardee’s past work. Aquila argued the awardee’s references failed to demonstrate experience with the administrative tasks of operating a fitness center, whereas its own addressed these requirements. According to Aquila, Strive’s failure to demonstrate experience with half of the requirements rendered its “excellent” rating unreasonable.
The agency argued that the past performance evaluation did not involve a comparison to a checklist of tasks in the SOW. Rather, the evaluators defined scope as experience with the day-to-day management and operation of a fitness center, and providing of group fitness instruction. ODRA agreed, finding the solicitation defined relevant scope as “similar” to the requirement, not identical. Based on that standard, ODRA found the past performance evaluation reasonable.
Based on its conclusion that several of the weaknesses assessed to Aquila’s proposal lacked a rational basis, ODRA concluded that Aquila had demonstrated it had a reasonable chance for award, absent the errors. Of nine proposals submitted in response to the solicitation, Aquila’s was rated third highest technically. The two higher-rated proposals—including the awardee’s—were both higher priced. Because addressing the errors in the evaluation would result in Aquila achieving a higher technical rating, and would narrow the point difference between its proposal and the awardee’s, ODRA considered it possible the agency might have reached a different best value tradeoff decision. ODRA recommended the agency reassess proposals and render a new award decision.
Aquila Fitness Consulting Systems Ltd. is represented by Alexander J. Brittin of Brittin Law Group, PLLC. Strive Well-Being Inc. is represented by Sanjay R. Sangani, Director of Operations. The government is represented by William J. Selinger and Diana Truong, FAA Headquarters
