The protester challenged the award of a federal supply schedule blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to the awardee. It claimed that the agency failed to provide adequate justification for selecting a proposal that was 41% more expensive than their own. The agency documented its rationale for the award and, based on the contemporaneous record, GAO found that the protester's arguments lacked merit. The awardee's proposal required significantly less oversight.
Subsidium, Inc., GAO B-423708
- Background - The protester, a small business based in Virginia, contested the Department of State’s award of a blanket purchase agreement for human resource services to the awardee, a small business from Wyoming. The protester requested a brief explanation of the award decision after being informed of the outcome but did not receive a timely response. Following the lack of communication, the protester filed a protest with GAO arguing that the agency had failed to provide adequate justification for the awardee's higher price.
- Failure to Provide Explanation - The protester claimed the agency's delay in providing a brief explanation of the award was a significant oversight. It purportedly undermined the integrity of the procurement process. Although the agency later issued a brief explanation post-protest, the protester deemed it insufficient as it lacked details on technical evaluations and the tradeoff. GAO interpreted this issue as procedural. It ruled that the adequacy of the explanation provided does not relate directly to the legitimacy of the award itself. It therefore dismissed this part of the protest.
- Insufficient Tradeoff Justification - The protester argued that the agency failed to document a valid tradeoff rationale to justify the awardee's significantly higher pricing. This claim suggested that large price differentials must be explicitly supported in decision-making documents. However, GAO found the agency had indeed performed a tradeoff analysis, thoroughly documenting the award decision. The agency's rationale demonstrated that the awardee’s superior technical score and proposal features. It reasonably eliminated the protester's proposal because it would "require substantial government oversight and increase the likelihood of poor performance." In contrast, the awardee had an effective management and a strong recruitment strategy.
The protester is represented by Chris Clark. The awardee, Concordant LLC, is represented by John W. Cox, Esq. of the Department of State. GAO attorneys Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq. participated in the decision.