The protester contended it should have received an additional strength because aspects of its proposal ensured timely performance. GAO did not think this merited a strength. Timely performance was already a requirement. Ensuring timely performance didn’t exceed the solicitation’s requirements.
Sierra7, GAO B-421299.2
- Additional Strength – The protester argued it should’ve received an additional strength for attributes of its proposal that contributed to the timeliness of performance. GAO rejected the argument. A strength is warranted for features that exceed the solicitation’s requirements. Features that simply ensure timely performance do not exceed the requirements. The solicitation already required timely performance. The protester had not explained how offering to perform on time exceeded the solicitation’s requirements.
- Interested Party – The protester raised additional challenges to the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal. Burt GAO found the protester was not an interested party to assert these protest grounds. Another intervening offeror had a lower price and was next in line for award.
The protester is represented by Thomas K. David, Kenneth D. Brody, and Katherine A. David of Reston Law Group, LLP. The awardee is represented by Isaias “Cy” Alba, Katherine B. Burrows, James N. Rhodes, and Joseph P. Loman of Piliero Mazza, PLLC. Annemarie Drazenovich and Reza Behinia of the Department of Veterans Affairs represent the agency. GAO attorneys Scott H. Riback and Tania Calhoun participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
