Protest objecting to agency’s evaluation is denied. The protester argued the agency failed to properly assess concerns with the awardee’s proposal and the benefits of the protester’s proposal. GAO found that these arguments simply amounted to disagreement with the agency’s discretionary conclusions.
Background
The Army issued an RFP for training support services. The agency received five offers, including proposals from Executive Acquisition & Global Logistic, Engineering Services (EAGLES) and Charles F. Day and Associates. The Army awarded the contract to Day. While EAGLES had a technically superior proposal, the Army determined that the benefits of EAGLES’ proposal were not significant enough to justify the price premium. EAGLES protested.
Legal Analysis
- Agency Appropriately Found Day’s Proposal Acceptable – EAGLES contended Day lacked the capability to perform the requirements. EAGLES noted that the evaluators had questioned Day’s capability in handwritten notes. But GAO found that while the evaluators indicated a concern with Day, the record also showed that their concerns did not amount to a deficiency or even a weakness. This determination of whether this concern was significant was within the evaluators’ discretion.
- Agency Reasonably Evaluated Day’s Past Performance - EAGLES claimed Day’s performance record did not deserve the somewhat relevant rating it had received because it had not provided the required training within the last 3 years. GOA found this was just mere disagreement with the evaluation. The agency had reviewed Day’s contracts and reasonably concluded they included enough of the PWS requirements to qualify as somewhat relevant.
- Agency Didn’t Fail to Recognize Benefits of EAGLES’ Proposal – EAGLES complained the agency failed to assign strengths to unique aspects of its proposal. GAO found that the agency had considered these aspects and reasonably concluded they weren’t that beneficial.
EAGLES is represented by Gunjan R. Talati, Jamie C. Lipsitz, and Jennifer E. Andrews of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP. The agency is represented by Andrew J. Smith, Major Weston E. Borkenhagen, Major Gregory T. O’Malley, and Captain Timothy M. McLister of the Army. GAO attorneys Paul N. Wengert and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.