The protester argued the awardee materially misrepresented its role on a past performance contract. The protester claimed the awardee falsely stated it “managed” and “led” a joint venture contract when the protester was actually the managing member. GAO denied the protest. Under established precedent, a misrepresentation is only material if the agency relied on it and it likely affected the evaluation outcome. Here, the agency’s evaluation would have reached the same conclusion without considering the disputed contract.
Quantum Research International, Inc., GAO B-423237.2; B-423237.3
- Background – The Army issued a task order requirement for program management, scientific, engineering, and other services supporting its Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office. The protester and awardee had previously been joint venture partners on a contract called MATCH SEC. After award, the protester filed an initial protest alleging misrepresentation. The agency took corrective action, reevaluated proposals, and again selected the awardee. The protester then filed this second protest.
- Material Misrepresentation – The protester argued the awardee lied about “managing” and “leading” the MATCH SEC contract, claiming only the protester as managing JV member could make such statements. GAO found that even assuming a misrepresentation occurred, it wasn’t material because MATCH SEC was rated only “somewhat relevant” (same as other references), had limited performance data compared to other contracts, and removing it wouldn’t change the overall evaluation. The agency independently verified it would reach the same past performance rating without considering MATCH SEC.
- Past Performance Evaluation – The protester challenged the agency’s “somewhat relevant” ratings for certain contracts, arguing they failed to meet minimum criteria for subcontractor management and dollar values. GAO rejected this interpretation, finding the solicitation didn’t establish minimum requirements but rather a sliding scale of relevance. The agency reasonably concluded contracts with some similar scope and complexity merited “somewhat relevant” ratings, while those with greater similarity earned “relevant” ratings. The evaluation properly followed the solicitation’s criteria.
- Best-Value Tradeoff – The protester claimed the agency minimized technical differences and improperly focused on price. GAO found the agency adequately documented its analysis, recognizing the protester’s advantages in less important factors while determining they didn’t justify the significant price premium. The agency properly weighed the awardee’s superiority under the most important task execution factor against the protester’s advantages elsewhere.
The protester is represented by W. Brad English of Maynard Nexsen PC. The intervenor, PeopleTec, Inc., is represented by Cara L. Sizemore, Brian G. Walsh, Morgan W. Huston, and Jonathan C. Clark of Wiley Rein LLP. The government is represented by Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Textor and John C. Degnan of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Nathaniel S. Canfield and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
