Agency’s Desultory Evaluation and Limp Protest Arguments Result in a Sustain
The protester challenged the evaluation. GAO sustained. The agency didn’t respond to one of the protester’s arguments. As to the other arguments, the agency had not documented the evaluation.
ITility, LLC, GAO B-421871.3, B-421871.4
- Agency Nonresponse – The protester contended the agency wrongly credited the protester for a proposed enterprise risk management tool. The protester argued the awardee had not committed to using the tool. Additionally, the protester had proposed the tool for enterprise resource managment, not enterprise risk management. The agency did not substantively address these allegations, so GAO sustained.
- Accountants – The solicitation required two accountants. The solicitation stated a preference for accountants who were CPAs. The awardee only proposed one CPA; the protester proposed two. The protester alleged the agency hadn’t considered this discriminator between proposals. GAO agreed. Nothing in the record indicated the agency had qualitatively compared the offerors’ accountants. Instead, the agency had simply found both offerors met the requirements.
- Transition Plan – The protester argued the agency had ignored the benefits of its transition plan. GAO again sided with the protester. The solicitation required a detailed qualitative assessment of transition plans. It was not clear the agency had qualitatively evaluated transition plans at all.
The protester is represented by Danile J. Strouse, Pablo Nichols, John J. O’Brien, Rhina Cardenal, and Jason W. Moy participated in the decision. The agency is represented by Eric M. Steinberg and John C. Dohn II of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Kenneth Kilgour and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/GAO-Itility.pdf” title=”GAO – Itility”]
