If the SSA Removes 33 Strengths Assigned by the Evaluators, He Better Have a Cogent Explanation
The protester alleged the agency didn’t document the best value tradeoff. In particular, the SSA hadn’t explained why he eliminated 33 strengths the evaluators assessed to the protester. GAO sustained the protest. Nothing in the record explained why the SSA had removed the strengths. The agency’s post hoc rationales were feeble and inconsistent with the record.
AT&T Corporation, GAO B-421195, B-421195.2
Background
The Secret Service posted an RFP seeking virtual private networks and internet protocol networks. Five offerors, including AT&T and Lumen Technologies, submitted proposals. The agency awarded the contract to Lumen. AT&T protested.
Analysis
AT&T alleged the SSA failed to properly document the best value tradeoff. The evaluators had assessed 42 strengths to AT&T’s proposal. But the SSA removed 33 of those strengths. AT&T alleged the SSA hadn’t explained why he removed those strengths.
GAO agreed with AT&T. The contemporaneous record didn’t explain the removal of the strengths. In response to the protest, the agency attempted to provide some justifications for removal of the strengths. But GAO rejected the agency’s post hoc explanations. Nothing in the contemporaneous was consistent with the agency’s rationales.
GAO recommended the agency conduct a new best value tradeoff.
AT&T is represented by Jonathan M. Baker, Daniel R. Forman, Per D. Midboe, and David H. Favre III of Crowell & Moring. The intervenor, Lumen, is represented by Shelly L. Ewald, Andrew L. Balland, and Jordan A. Hutcheson of Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald LLP. The agency is represented by Michael Noyes, Jessica Chen, and Paulina Valanty of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Katherine I. Riback and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GAO-ATT-Corporation.pdf” title=”GAO – AT&T Corporation”]
