Did the Protester Submit a Cadillac Proposal or a Mere Honda Civic?

The protester objected to the acceptable rating it received under the technical factor.  The protester contended it had not received any weaknesses, so it should have received a higher rating. GAO found this argument meritless. An outstanding rating was reserved for an exceptional approach with multiple strengths. The protester may not have received weaknesses, but its approach was still pretty mid. The acceptable rating was appropriate.

TekSynap Corporation, GAO B-419464.3, B-419464.4

Background

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) issued an RFP seeking information technology services. The RFP contemplated a single IDIQ contract. Five offerors submitted proposals. NGA awarded the contract to Chenega Agile Real-Time Solutions (CARS). An unsuccessful offeror, TekSynap Corporation, protested. GAO sustained the protest, finding the evaluation was inconsistent with the solicitation.

Following the sustained protest, NGA amended the solicitation and considered revised proposals. Once again, NGA selected CARS for award. TekSynap filed a second protest.

Analysis

Acceptable Rating

TekSynap objected to the acceptable rating it received under the technical factor. TekSynap argued that it had not received any weaknesses and thus should have received a a higher rating.

GAO wasn’t convinced. Under the solicitation, an outstanding rating was warranted for an exceptional approach with multiple strengths. TekSynap may not have had weaknesses, but its proposal had not wowed the agency with its approach or multiple strengths. The acceptable rating was warranted.

Removal of Strengths

NGA had assessed strengths to TekSynap in the initial evaluation. But when NGA reevaluated after the protest, it removed those strengths. TekSynap said NGA failed to reconcile these differing evaluation results. But an agency is not required to reconcile a later evaluation with an earlier one; it’s not even required to explain why the evaluation changed.

Price Realism

TekSynap alleged NGA hadn’t examined CARS’s technical approach when evaluating price realism. GAO found this argument was belied by the record. The agency considered technical approaches. Indeed, the agency had even found some of CARS’s rates unrealistic, warranting a slight weakness.

TekSynap is represented by Elizabeth N. Jocum, Tjasse L. Fritz, and David L. Bodner of Blank Rome LLP. The intervenor, CARS, is represented by William K. Walker of Walker Reausaw. The agency is represented by Bree A. Ermentrout, Anthony Lascola, Kenneth W. Sach, and Darrell L. Tardiff of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. GAO attorneys Sarah T. Zaffina and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the decision.

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/GAO-TekSynap-Corporation.pdf” title=”GAO – TekSynap Corporation”]