DIGEST<\/p>\n
Protest challenging the agency\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION<\/p>\n
The protester alleges that the agency\u2019s evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Protest at 10-12; Comments at 8-10.\u00a0 The agency responds that it evaluated the protester\u2019s past performance reasonably and in accordance with the RTOP\u2019s terms, and furthermore that it was not obligated to reconcile any rating changes resulting from the reevaluation of proposals.<\/p>\n
Memorandum of Law at 13-24.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Intervenor Comments at 13-14.\u00a0 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that there is no basis on which to sustain the protest.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 See, e.g., HeiTech-PAE, LLC, B-420049.9, B-420049.10, June 8, 2022, 2022 CPD \u00b6 162 at 11-12; PAE Aviation and Tech. Servs., LLC, B-417704.7, B-417704.8, June 8, 2021, 2021 CPD \u00b6 293 at 9; Hughes Coleman, JV, B-417787.5, July 29, 2020, 2020 CPD \u00b6 257 at 7 n.5; MILVETS Sys. Tech., Inc., B-409051.7, B-409051.9, Jan. 29, 2016, 2016 CPD \u00b6 53 at 6-7; IAP World Servs., Inc., B-406339.2, Oct. 9, 2012, 2012 CPD \u00b6 287 at 3-4.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Global Asset Techs., LLC, B-416576.8, B-416576.9, Nov. 22, 2019, 2019 CPD \u00b6 408 at 5; see also AdvanceMed Corp., B-415360 et al., Dec. 19, 2017, 2018 CPD \u00b6 4 at 7.\u00a0 Quite simply, the overriding concern in our review is not whether an agency\u2019s final evaluation is consistent with an earlier evaluation, but rather, whether it is reasonable and consistent with the solicitation\u2019s stated evaluation criteria\u2026<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 The protester contends that the agency\u2019s evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable for failing to reconcile the initial and post-corrective action evaluations.<\/p>\n
We deny the protest.<\/p>\n