Proposal Undone By Less Than Stellar Oral Presentation; XL Associates, Inc., GAO B-420078, B-420078.2

Protest challenging agency’s evaluation is denied. The protester asserted that the agency had unreasonably penalized it under an oral presentation factor for one employee’s poor presentation skills. The employee had read from a script and needed help answering questions. GAO, however, found that the agency had not penalized the protester for presentation skills. Rather, the agency determined it had decreased confidence in the protester based on the content of the presentation. The individual’s presentation revealed a lack of understanding of the requirement. 

Background

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issued a solicitation to vendors holding the FSS contract for information technology services. The solicitation sought software testing and configuration. After an initial review of proposals, NARA performed down-select identifying the four most high-rated vendors. Each of the remaining vendors was invited to make an oral presentation to the agency.

Following presentations, NARA selected Public Consulting Group for award. The incumbent contract, XL Associates, protested.

Legal Analysis

• Agency Reasonably Determined that Key Personnel Lacked Experience – NARA had found that three of the individuals XL proposed for key positions failed to demonstrate experience with backend testing. XL claimed that the individuals had shown the requisite experience. But GAO found that one of the individual’s resumes didn’t mention backend testing. The other individuals resumes only made cursory references to backend testing. The agency reasonably found that they had not demonstrated the required experience.
• Agency Didn’t Penalize XL for Poor Presentation Skills – NARA found that it had decreased confidence in XL’s proposal under the solicitation’s oral presentation factor. The agency had been critical of an XL employee who read from a script and needed other people to jump in during the presentation to help them answer questions. XL alleged that NARA was basically judging the company based on the quality of this person’s presentation skills. Because presentation skills were not a requirement, NARA was applying unstated criteria. But GAO found that NARA had not penalized XL for one person’s presentation skills. Rather, the content and accuracy of this person’s responses to questions indicated that they didn’t fully understand the relevant material.

XL is represented by Michael J. Gardner, Shomari B. Wade, Brett C. Castellat, and Christopher M. O’Brien of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.  The intervenor, Public Consulting, is represented by Mark D. David, Charles T. Kimmett, and Gena E. Cadieux of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP. The agency is represented by Jennifer Klien of the National Archives and Records Administration. GAO attorneys Heather Weiner and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/GAO-XL-Associates.pdf” title=”GAO – XL Associates”]