Africa Studio | Shutterstock

Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation under various technical criteria is sustained. The solicitation provided the agency would evaluate the extent to which offerors’ proposals satisfied several requirements. When a solicitation provides that the agency will evaluate the extent to which the proposal satisfies a requirement, an offeror can reasonably expect an agency to perform a qualitative evaluation of proposals. In this case, however, the agency conducted a rote, mechanical evaluation that only assessed whether the protester satisfied the solicitation’s minimum requirements. The agency failed to evaluate the extent to which the protester’s proposal exceeded requirements.

The Air Force issued a synopsis seeking architectural and engineering services. The Air Force issued the synopsis under FAR subpart 36.6, which governs the procedures for procurement of architectural services. The synopsis contemplated the award of multiple iDIQ contracts. Offerors were instructed to submit a form indicating which of four pools they wanted to compete in.

In accordance with FAR 36.6, Evergreen JV submitted a statement of qualification in response to the synopsis. Evergreen indicated that it wanted to compete in Pool 2 of the synopsis. The Air Force, however, did not select Evergreen for award. Evergreen protested.

Evergreen first alleged that the Air Force had misevaluated its statement of qualifications under a Specialized Experience and Technical Qualifications criterion. Under that criterion, offerors were required to submit descriptions of relevant and completed projects. The synopsis provided that greater consideration may be given to offerors that satisfied certain additional elements—e.g., greater experience in a variety of relevant projects, or experience on other relevant DoD projects. The Air Force had credited Evergreen with meeting 13 elements for greater consideration for the project the company submitted. But Evergreen argued that, in contravention of the synopsis, the Air Force had failed to qualitatively assess those aspects of Evergreen’s statement that merited greater consideration. Instead, the agency had simply counted up the instances that merited greater consideration without actually giving those instances greater consideration.

GAO agreed with Evergreen. The synopsis provided that the Air Force would give greater consideration to offerors demonstrating “a greater extent and breadth of experience.” Simply counting up instances of greater or more relevant experience, however, does not consider the “extent or breadth” of each offeror’s experience. Nothing in the record showed that the Air Force had actually considered the quality of the instances where a Evergreen demonstrated experience with a project.

Evergreen also challenged the Air Force’s evaluation under a Professional Qualifications criterion. The synopsis provided that the Air Force would evaluate the extent to which offerors’ proposed personnel satisfied various requirements. When a solicitation indicates that an agency will evaluate the extent to which a proposal meets a requirement, offerors can expect that the agency will qualitatively evaluate proposals. But here, Evergreen argued, the Air Force only considered whether the company met the solicitation’s minimum requirement without a qualitative assessment.

Once again, GAO agreed with Evergreen. The synopsis stated that the Air Force would consider the extent of breadth of personnel’s relevant experience. In evaluating experience, however, the Air Force simply verified that the individuals proposed had 10 years experience required by the synopsis. No additional consideration was given to offerors who exceeded the minimum requirements.

Additionally, the synopsis required the Air Force to consider the extent of professional licenses and certifications. Although the Air Force gave Evergreen credit for each key person’s license and certification, several of Evergreen’s proposed personnel had additional licenses and certifications that were not considered. Thus, the evaluation was contrary to the synopsis.

Also, the synopsis sated that the Air Force would give more consideration to key persons who were employed directly by the prime contractor. But the Air Force merely ensured that the offeror had proposed personnel employed by the prime. The agency never considered how long those personnel had been employed by the prime contractor.

The synopsis provided that the Air Force would evaluate the extent of experience that personnel had with DoD programs. The Air Force, however, failed to qualitatively assess the number of years each offeror’s key personnel demonstrated or compared offerors’ experience on DoD programs against each other.

GAO found that Evergreen had been prejudiced by the Air Force’s evaluation. Given that the synopsis required the agency to perform a qualitative assessment of certain aspects of the statements of qualifications, and the agency failed to do so, a review consistent with the synopsis could have resulted in an award to Evergreen.

Evergreen is represented by Richard B. Oliver, J. Matthew Carter, and Mary E. Buxton of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz and April R. Guevarra of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards, Charmaine A. Stevenson, and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.