Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Disposition: Protest sustained.
Keywords: Technical Evaluation
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: A contracting agency must treat all offerors equally and evaluate their proposals evenhandedly. GAO will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable, in accord with the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, and whether the agency treated offerors equally in its evaluation of their respective proposals and did not disparately evaluate proposals with respect to the same requirements.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a request for proposals (RFP), for the construction of a radiology imaging center. The RFP, issued as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside, sought proposals for construction services to expand and replace the radiology imaging center at the VA Medical Center.
Brican, Inc. was denied award after the SSEB rated its proposal under the past performance factor as unacceptable with moderate overall risk, because Brican did not have at least three projects of similar size, scope, and complexity involving image center construction. Also, although the awardee did not identify or propose to use a shielding subcontractor in its proposal, the descriptions of the two imaging center construction projects provided for the past performance evaluation reveals that the awardee used the same shielding subcontractor that Brican proposed.
A contracting agency must treat all offerors equally and evaluate their proposals evenhandedly. GAO will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable, in accord with the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, and whether the agency treated offerors equally in its evaluation of their respective proposals and did not disparately evaluate proposals with respect to the same requirements.
GAO finds that the VA did not reasonably evaluate Brian’s proposal in accordance with the RFP’s requirements and evaluation factors. Brican proposed an experienced subcontractor, who was the same subcontractor identified in the awardee’s proposal. Although the RFP specifically provided for consideration of past performance/experience of major subcontractor’s, there is no evidence that the agency considered the past performance/experience of Brican’s shielding contractor. Additionally, the record establishes that the VA did not reasonably evaluate the awardee’s proposal under the past performance factor where the record shows that the awardee did not satisfy the RFP requirement for three completed imaging center construction projects. GAO sustains the protest.