The protester objected to the best-value tradeoff, arguing the agency had not quantified the benefits and risks of each proposal. GAO found the agency had considered the relative benefits and risks, and that was enough. An agency is not required to quantify the benefits and risks considered in a tradeoff decision.
Jacobs Technology, Inc., GAO B-522040
- Inappropriate Personnel – The agency assessed the protester a weakness for proposing inappropriate personnel. The protester objected, claiming all its proposed personnel were necessary. GAO sided with the agency. The protester had proposed staff to fill roles that were not needed for the work contemplated by the solicitation. The agency reasonably concluded the protester’s staffing indicated a misunderstanding of the requirements.
- Replacement of Positions – The agency assessed the protester a weakness for reducing senior positions to junior positions during options years. The protester complained that it had only reduced senior positions to intermediate ones. But GAO found this was a distinction without a difference. The problem was that the protester had reduced higher-level, experienced positions to lower-level, less experienced positions. The agency raised concerns about this during discussions. The protester had not adequately addressed those concerns. The weakness was justified.
- Quantifying of Risks and Benefits – The agency selected the awardee’s higher-priced proposal, finding the benefits of that proposal justified the price premium. The protester argued the tradeoff was unreasonable because the agency had not quantified the benefits and risks of each proposal. But GAO found the agency had considered benefits and risks. An agency, however, is not required to quantify the risks and benefits it considers in a tradeoff decision.
The protester is represented by Brian P. Waagner, Steven A. Neely, and George E. Stewart III of Husch Blackwell LLP. The awardee is represented by Michael F. Mason, Taylor A Hillman, Christine A. Reynolds, and Stacy M. Hedeka of Hogan Lovells US LLP. Julie A. Glascott, James Kim, and Andrew J. Smith of the Army represent the agency. GAO attorneys Mary G. Curcio and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
