Solicitation Required Vendors to Describe Their Abilities to Do the Work. Did This Also Require Vendors to Describe How They Would Do the Work?

The protester contended the solicitation only required a description of abilities. The agency, however, improperly required the protester to describe how it would perform. But GAO said the solicitation didn’t just require a description of abilities; it also required vendors to describe their “approach”—that is, how they would perform the work. 

Enterprise Solutions & Management Corporation, GAO B-421776 

• Deficiency – The protester objected to a deficiency it received under a technical subfactor. In assessing the deficiency, the agency found the protester had not adequately described how it would support one of the agency’s cybersecurity capabilities. 
• Description of Abilities – The protester argued the agency misapplied evaluation criteria. The protester contended the criteria only required vendors to describe their abilities to do the work. But, the protester reasoned, the agency had evaluated how vendors proposed to do the work. GAO rejected the argument. The solicitation asked vendors to describe their abilities. Yet, it also stated the agency would assess vendors’ demonstrated approach and understanding of the requirement. The use of the word “approach” meant the agency was going to assess how a vendor planned to do the work. 
• Comply to Connect and Zero Trust – The protester complained that it had been penalized for not addressing a cybersecurity capability called Comply to Connect and Zero Trust. The protester argued that in response to vendor questions, the agency had notified vendors they wouldn’t need to create a detailed plan on Comply to Connect and Zero Trust. GAO found the protester had misconstrued the agency’s response and ignored the solicitation. The solicitation required vendors to create a plan that addressed the Comply to Connect and Zero Trust. 
• Well-Written Quotation – The protester alleged it had discussed Comply to Connect and Zero Trust in its quotation, but the agency ignored it. GAO noted the protester had not discussed the Comply to Connect capability under the required technical subfactor, and its discussion lacked detail. Agencies are not required to infer information from an inadequately detailed quotation. 

The protester is represented by Craig A. Holman, Thomas A. Petit, and Juilia Swafford of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP. The awardee is represented by Paul A. Debolt, Christopher G Griesedieck, Lindsay M. Reed, and Allison M. Siegel of Venable, LLP. The agency is represented by Vera A. Strebel and Colleen A. Eagan of the Defense Information Systems Agency. GAO attorneys Uri R. Yoo 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/2023/10/GAO-Enterprise-Solutions.pdf” title=”GAO – Enterprise Solutions”]