Protester Complained Its Evaluation Was Inconsistent with a Prior Evaluation Under a Previous Solicitation. But GAO Says Them’s the Breaks

The protester contended that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation for maintenance services. The protester argued that the evaluation was inconsistent with previous evaluations the company received under prior iterations of the solicitation. But GAO was not bothered by the alleged inconsistency. The current solicitation was separate and distinct from previous solicitations. An agency’s evaluation under one solicitation is not probative of its evaluation under another solicitation.

Low Voltage Wiring, Ltd., GAO, B-423502.3; B-423502.4

• Background – The Army awarded a task order for preventative and corrective maintenance services. Low Voltage Wiring, Ltd. (the protester), argued that the agency’s technical evaluation and best-value determination were unreasonable and inconsistent with prior evaluations.
• Evaluation Criteria Consistency – The protester claimed the agency’s technical evaluation was inconsistent with its evaluation under prior versions of the solicitation. GAO noted that each procurement stands on its own. Here, each solicitation was distinct, with different evaluators. Variances in evaluations do not automatically imply unreasonableness, especially when considered under separate RFQs.
• Past Performance Evaluation – The protester next argued that the agency failed to properly assess its past performance, claiming recent work history was not adequately recognized. However, GAO  found no competitive prejudice. Even if the protester’s past performance rating were increased, the protester’s proposal would still be higher in price than the awardee’s.

The protester is represented by Bret S. Wacker, Esq., and Ronald D. Sullivan, Esq. of Clark Hill PLC. The intervenor, TeamGOV, Inc., is represented by Christopher R. Shiplett, Esq. of Randolph Law, PLLC. The government is represented by Robert I. Moore, Esq. of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq. participated in the decision.