Protester’s Experience References Had Higher Contract Values than Awardee’s. Did This Make the Protester’s References More Relevant?

The protester contended its experience was superior to the awardee’s because the protester’s references had a higher contract value. GAO rejected the argument. The awardee’s references exceeded the value of the solicitation, and the solicitation did not require the agency to give more weight to higher-value contracts. 

Sparksoft Corporation, GAO B-421458.8  

• Mechanical Evaluation – The protester alleged the agency evaluated corporate experience on a pass/fail basis instead of assessing the degree of relevance as required by the RFQ. GAO noted that while the documentation was sparse, the agency had reviewed the experience and explained its conclusions. Even if the analysis was not thorough, the protester had not meaningfully argued the awardee failed to demonstrate relevant experience. 
• Higher Contract Values – The protester contended its experience references had higher a contract value than the awardee’s, so the agency should have found the protester’s experience superior. But GAO noted the awardee’s references exceeded the value of effort contemplated by the solicitation. Moreover, the solicitation did not require the agency to give more weight to higher-value contracts. 
• Subcontractor Experience – The protester argued it should have received a higher experience rating because it had direct experience performing all the tasks, while the awardee had submitted experience references from a subcontractor. But the solicitation permitted vendors to submit experience from a proposed subcontractor. Nothing in the solicitation required the agency to consider the experience of a prime vendor more relevant than the experience of a proposed subcontractor. 

The protester is represented by Elizabeth Jochum, Robyn Burrows, Samrath Barot, David Bodner, and Amanda DeLaPerriere of Blank Rome LLP. The awardee is represented by Amy L. O’Sullivan, Zachary H. Schroeder, and David H. Favre III of Crowell & Moring LP. The agency is represented by Martin A. McEnrue of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Alexander O. Levine 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-Sparksoftpdf.pdf” title=”GAO – Sparksoftpdf”]