Tag: prior experience

60-Second Sustains: BrightPoint, LLC

Elizabeth N. Jochum and David L. Bodner ●

Protest of: BrightPoint, LLC
B-423392, B-423392.2, B-423392.3

  • BrightPoint raised numerous challenges to the Department of Agriculture’s evaluation and award of a task order for information technology services.
  • The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) sustained one protest ground: that the discriminators identified by the Agency to justify its award decision were based on the awardee’s experience with work unrelated to the anticipated work scope and also possessed and demonstrated by Brightpoint.
  • In response to this protest ground, the Agency argued “in general terms” that its evaluation was reasonable and equal.
  • But GAO noted that the Agency did not demonstrate a connection between the Solicitation’s requirements and the positive findings it gave to the awardee’s experience.
  • The Agency also did not “meaningfully respond” to Brightpoint’s allegations of unequal treatment, stating only that it treated offerors equally.
  • GAO determined that, but for the discriminators identified in favor of the awardee, Brightpoint might have been selected for award, even at a small price premium.
  • GAO recommended the Agency reevaluate the prior experience volumes and make a new source selection decision.

60-Second Sustains: SierTek-Peerless JV LLC

Elizabeth N. Jochum ●

SierTek-Peerless JV LLC
B-422085, B-422085.2

  • The protester alleged that the Transportation Security Administration had not properly evaluated the awardee’s proposal under the prior experience factor.
  • The RFP required the agency to consider the size of offerors’ prior experience examples compared to the anticipated contract.
  • The Agency assigned the awardee a High Confidence rating under this factor, stating that they had demonstrated prior experience that was relevant in terms of both size and scope.
  • But the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) found that the evaluation record failed to demonstrate that the Agency evaluated whether the size of the awardee’s prior experience examples were similar to the anticipated contract.
  • The evaluation report contained “little, if any discussion of any indicia of the size” of one of projects and conclusory statements that the other projects were similar in size, without any discussion of why and despite differing values and staffing numbers.
  • GAO found that the agency’s evaluation focused almost entirely on scope, rather than size, of the prior experience examples.
  • Since prior experience was the most important evaluation factor, GAO stated the protester was possibly prejudiced by the error and recommended the Agency reevaluate proposals.