Decision released related to the protest denial of an Army requirement for C4IM IT Support Services

DIGEST

Protest challenging the agency’s post-corrective action evaluation because it was not reconciled with an earlier evaluation is denied where the protester has not demonstrated any possibility of competitive prejudice.

DISCUSSION

The protester alleges that the agency’s evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable.  The sole basis asserted by the protester is that the agency failed to reconcile the apparent change in the past performance rating from substantial confidence to neutral confidence.  Protest at 10-12; Comments at 8-10.  The agency responds that it evaluated the protester’s past performance reasonably and in accordance with the RTOP’s terms, and furthermore that it was not obligated to reconcile any rating changes resulting from the reevaluation of proposals.

Memorandum of Law at 13-24.  The intervenor additionally argues that the protester was not prejudiced by any failure to reconcile changed evaluation results because the agency informed the protester of both the rationale for the neutral confidence rating and provided the protester with an opportunity to revise its proposal in response.  Intervenor Comments at 13-14.  For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that there is no basis on which to sustain the protest.  Our Office has consistently stated that the mere fact that a reevaluation of proposals after corrective action varies from the original evaluation does not constitute evidence that the reevaluation was unreasonable, since it is implicit that a reevaluation can result in different findings and conclusions.  See, e.g., HeiTech-PAE, LLC, B-420049.9, B-420049.10, June 8, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 162 at 11-12; PAE Aviation and Tech. Servs., LLC, B-417704.7, B-417704.8, June 8, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 293 at 9; Hughes Coleman, JV, B-417787.5, July 29, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 257 at 7 n.5; MILVETS Sys. Tech., Inc., B-409051.7, B-409051.9, Jan. 29, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 53 at 6-7; IAP World Servs., Inc., B-406339.2, Oct. 9, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 287 at 3-4.  We generally also have found the argument that a reevaluation following corrective action was per se unreasonable because it was not reconciled with an earlier evaluation to be without legal or factual basis; this is because there generally is no requirement that an agency reconcile a later evaluation with an earlier one or explain why the evaluation changed.  Global Asset Techs., LLC, B-416576.8, B-416576.9, Nov. 22, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 408 at 5; see also AdvanceMed Corp., B-415360 et al., Dec. 19, 2017, 2018 CPD ¶ 4 at 7.  Quite simply, the overriding concern in our review is not whether an agency’s final evaluation is consistent with an earlier evaluation, but rather, whether it is reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria…

DECISION

Computer World Services Corporation, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, under request for task order proposal (RTOP) No. W911SA22R3004, issued by the Department of the Army for command, control, communications, computers, and information (C4IM) information technology (IT) support services.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable for failing to reconcile the initial and post-corrective action evaluations.

We deny the protest.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story