Patriot Group International, Inc. (B-422969.2; B-422969.3)

You should not care.

Category: Technical evaluation, cost or price evaluation, process issue

Date: 30 December 2024

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422969.2%2Cb-422969.3

Patriot Group International, Inc. (PGI) protested the Air Force's award of a task order to PAE Applied Technologies LLC (Amentum) under an IDIQ contract supporting counterdrug and counterterrorism missions. PGI alleged the agency conducted coercive discussions, improperly evaluated technical proposals, failed to consider Amentum’s past performance, and conducted an unreasonable best-value tradeoff analysis. GAO denied all claims.

PGI's main claims included:

1. The agency failed to assign PGI’s technical proposal sufficient strengths, particularly for its training programs and analytical techniques. GAO found these elements merely met solicitation requirements and did not warrant strengths.
2. Allegations of Amentum’s past performance issues were dismissed because the solicitation did not include past performance evaluation criteria.
3. Claims that discussions on PGI's labor rates were misleading or coercive were denied; the Air Force accurately flagged labor rates as unrealistically low and left revisions to PGI’s discretion.
4. A best-value tradeoff was challenged but upheld as consistent with stated evaluation criteria.

GAO also dismissed untimely claims of latent ambiguity in the solicitation’s adjectival rating definitions, which should have been protested preaward.

Digest

Protest alleging the agency’s discussions were misleading and coercive is denied where the agency addressed legitimate concerns in the protester’s proposal and provided the protester with an opportunity to respond to those concerns. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. Protest alleging that the agency failed to consider multiple performance failures on the incumbent contract is dismissed as legally insufficient where the solicitation did not provide for the evaluation of past performance. Protest that the terms of the solicitation are latently ambiguous is dismissed as untimely where the protester failed to raise its argument within 10 calendar days of when it knew, or should have known, of the basis for its protest. Protest that the agency failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where protester fails to demonstrate that the tradeoff was unreasonable.