The protester challenged the past performance evaluation, alleging the agency erred in not considering the protester’s incumbent contract. The protester alleged the evaluators personally knew of the protester’s performance under the incumbent contract, so the information was “close at hand.” But the solicitation limited the definition of relevant contracts to orders issued under a particular IDIQ contract. The incumbent contract had not been issued under that IDIQ contract, so it was not relevant. The agency had not erred in declining to consider it.
Perspecta Engineering, Inc., GAO B-420501.2, B-420501.3
Background
The Army issued a solicitation to small businesses holding the agency’s Enterprise Software Solutions IT IDIQ contract. The solicitation contemplated award of a task order for IT capabilities to support Army’s Human Resources command. Four offerors submitted proposals. After multiple rounds of discussions, the Army awarded the contract to Business Mission Edge, LLC. An unsuccessful offeror, Perspecta Engineering, protested.
Analysis
Removal of Strength
Perspecta complained that the Army had removed a strength in the final evaluation that it had assessed to Perspecta’s management approach in an earlier evaluation. GAO didn’t see this as problematic. The fact that a reevaluation differs from an original evaluation does not mean the reevaluation was unreasonable. GAO’s only concern is whether the final evaluation is reasonable. Here, GAO didn’t see anything untoward with the final evaluation. Perspecta’s argument amounted to disagreement with the agency.
Failure to Assess Strengths
Perspecta argued the Army failed to assess a strength for its history of successfully meeting key performance indicators. GAO, however, found that a successful approach should meet key performance indicators and thus did not automatically warrant a strength.
Perspecta also claimed that it should have received a strength for its deputy program manager, whose 15 years of experience exceeded the solicitation’s five-year requirement. The solicitation, however, did not require the agency to award a strength to any proposed person that exceeded the minimum required experience.
Adjectival Rating
The Army assessed Perspecta a Good rating under the management/technical factor. Perspecta argued it should’ve received an Outstanding rating. But GAO reasoned that an Outstanding rating was only for proposals that demonstrated an exceptional approach. Perspecta had not meaningfully demonstrated that its approach was exceptional, rather than simply thorough.
Relevance of Past Performance Reference
Perspecta objected to the “somewhat relevant” rating assessed to one of its past performance references. Perspecta argued the reference should have been found relevant or highly relevant. GAO sided with the agency, noting that the reference was only somewhat similar scope of the solicitation.
Close at Hand
Perspecta contended the Army failed to consider information relevant to past performance information that was close at hand. In particular, Perspecta complained that the agency had failed to consider its work under the incumbent contract, which was personally known the evaluators. But GAO found the Army had reasonably declined to consider the incumbent contract. The solicitation defined relevant contracts as task orders performed under the Army’s Enterprise Software Solutions IDIQ contract. The incumbent contract had not been issued under that IDIQ contract, and, for this reason, Perspecta had not submitted the incumbent contract as one of its references. Because the incumbent contract was not relevant, the Army didn’t need to consider as close at hand.
Perspecta is represented by J. Scott Hommer, III, Rebecca E. Pearson, Christopher G. Griesedieck, Taylor A. Hillman, Caleb E. McCallum, and Andrew W. Current of Venable, LLP. The intervenor, Business Mission Edge, is represented by Stuart W. Turner and Amanda Sherwood of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP as well as Noah B. Bleicher, Carla J. Weiss, and Scott E. Whitman of Jenner & Block LLP. The agency is represented by Alex M. Cahill and Debra J. Talley of Army. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Alexander O. Levine participated in the preparation of the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
