Protester Claimed Awardee’s Approach Was Deficient, But GAO Found the Approach Was Merely Weak.

The protester alleged the agency only assigned the awardee’s proposal weaknesses when it should have found the proposal deficient. GAO disagreed with the protester’s interpretation of the solicitation’s terms. As a result, GAO concluded there was no basis on which to question the agency’s evaluation.

Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., GAO B-422823; B-422823.2

• Background – The agency solicited proposals for enterprise software development services. After the agency awarded the awardee, the protester challenged the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal.
• Recruitment and Retention Risks – The protester argued the awardee’s approach failed to identify a strategy to manage recruitment and retention. Specifically, the level of detail was inadequate because the solicitation required approaches to be keyed to specific performance work statement (PWS) requirements. GAO did not read the solicitation language to require this. While the protester’s approach may have been more detailed, it did not mean the awardee’s was deficient.
• Consideration of Weaknesses – The protester asserted the agency assigned weaknesses to the awardee’s proposal when it should have assigned significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The protester argued the awardee’s approach risked duplicated work and, in another instance, the awardee expressed uncertainty that it would produce a reusable code. The protester claimed these faults demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of the solicitation’s requirements. While the agency acknowledged these instances proposed a risk, it did not find them to be significant or unacceptable risks. GAO sided with the agency as the protester did not provide any basis to conclude the agency’s assessment was unreasonable.

The protester was represented by Kristen E. Ittig, Stuart W. Turner, Keith J. Feigenbaum, and Roee Talmor of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP. The intervenor was represented by David S. Cohen and John J. O’Brien of Cordatis LLP. The agency was represented by Ronald J. Bakay, Rachel C. Fromm, and Desiree A. DiCorcia of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Michael Willems and Evan D. Wesser of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.

— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Booz-Allen-Hamilton-Inc.-GAO.pdf” title=”Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. – GAO”]