The protester challenged the issuance a corrosion control task order to a competitor, arguing the agency unreasonably assessed a significant weakness to its proposal based on a retiring key person, improperly evaluated the awardee’s past performance, and allowed the awardee to improperly lower its cost during discussions. GAO denied the protest, applying the rule that a protester must demonstrate competitive prejudice—meaning that but for the agency’s alleged errors, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. Because both offerors proposed the same retiring individual and received identical significant weaknesses, and because the awardee’s cost was lower even before discussions, the protester could not show prejudice.
Secise, LLC; Don Selvy Enterprises, Inc., GAO, B-424214.3; B-424214.4; B-424214.5; B-424214.7
Background – The Navy issued a solicitation to SeaPort NxG contract holders seeking subject matter experts to support the Navy’s Corrosion Control Assistance Team (CCAT) program. The Navy initially awarded the contract to the protester, but after two competing protests, the agency took corrective action, opened discussions, received revised proposals, and ultimately awarded the $64 million task order to the awardee. The protester then filed this protest.
Key Personnel Significant Weakness – The protester challenged the significant weakness assessed to its proposal under the personnel approach element based on its proposed deputy team lead’s retirement. GAO denied this ground on prejudice grounds. Both the protester and the awardee proposed the exact same individual for the deputy team lead position, and both received identical significant weaknesses when the individual announced his retirement before award. Since removing the weakness from the protester’s proposal would require removing it from the awardee’s as well, the protester’s competitive position would remain unchanged. The contracting officer confirmed that these matching significant weaknesses were not discriminating factors in the award decision.
Past Performance Evaluation – The protester argued the agency unreasonably assigned the awardee a substantial confidence rating, particularly challenging the agency’s reliance on a CPARS report tied to the awardee’s subcontractor’s performance on the incumbent contract. The protester complained the CPARS did not differentiate between prime and subcontractor contributions. GAO denied this challenge, finding the agency reasonably credited the subcontractor with the positive CPARS ratings because the subcontractor performed a significant percentage of the incumbent work and was proposed to perform the majority of labor hours on the new effort.
Discussions and Cost Revisions – The protester argued the awardee improperly used the limited discussions process to lower its proposed cost just below the protester’s, speculating the awardee learned the protester’s price from its debriefing. GAO denied this ground for lack of prejudice. The record showed the awardee’s initial proposed cost—submitted months before any debriefing—was already lower than the protester’s cost. Even if the agency should have rejected the awardee’s cost revisions, the awardee would still have had a lower cost, so the protester could not demonstrate it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award.
Best-Value Tradeoff – The protester challenged the agency’s determination that the two proposals were technically equal, arguing the agency failed to consider qualitative differences. GAO denied this ground. The record showed that of 69 personnel positions, the two offerors proposed 51 of the same employees and 13 of 15 identical key personnel. Given the similar approaches, matching strengths and weaknesses, and identical past performance ratings, the agency reasonably determined the awardee’s lower-cost proposal represented the best value.
The protester is represented by Gregory R. Hallmark, David S. Black, and Anne M. Delmare of Holland & Knight LLP. The intervenor, Elzly Technology Corporation, is represented by Lars E. Anderson, Charlotte R. Rosen, and Marshal S. Shah of Odin Feldman & Pittleman PC. The government is represented by Jennifer Lee, Marta Rajchel, and Justin V. Briones of the Department of the Navy. GAO attorneys Heather Weiner and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.