KR Contracting, Inc. (B-422346.2)

KR Contracting, Inc. (B-422346.2)
Photo by American Green Travel / Unsplash

You should not care.

Category: Technical evaluation, past performance, best value tradeoff

Date: 14 January 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422346.2

KR Contracting, Inc., protested TSA's issuance of a task order to VMD Corporation for comprehensive security screening services at Orlando Sanford International Airport (ORD). KR argued TSA unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the program management and training approach and past performance factors and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis.

Technical evaluation—key personnel and training ambiguity: KR challenged a significant weakness assigned to its proposal for failing to provide resumes for two security training instructors (STIs), arguing they were not key personnel. GAO found the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity (as opposed to patent) on whether all STIs were key personnel but ruled that KR was not competitively prejudiced as it had two additional weaknesses under this factor.

Past performance—weight of negative ratings: KR asserted TSA overemphasized its negative past performance and failed to consider positive contract summaries. GAO found TSA reasonably relied on CPARS ratings, correctly assessed KR’s mixed performance history, and had “low-end” satisfactory confidence in KR’s ability to perform.

Best value tradeoff—no requirement for direct comparison with awardee: KR argued TSA’s tradeoff improperly excluded a direct comparison with VMD, instead eliminating KR based on a transitive evaluation through another offeror. GAO ruled that indirect comparisons are permissible and TSA’s methodology was reasonable.

GAO denied the protest

Digest

Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where the record shows that, although the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity, the protester was not competitively prejudiced by the ambiguity, and the agency’s evaluation and best-value tradeoff analysis were otherwise reasonable.\