PingWind, Inc. (B-423141)

You should not care.

Category: Technical evaluation, price realism, best value tradeoff

Date: 5 February 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423141

PingWind, Inc., a small business, protested Army’s issuance of a cybersecurity services task order to Bravura Information Technology Systems, Inc., under the Army’s IT Enterprise Solutions 3 IDIQ. PingWind challenged Army’s evaluation of Bravura’s staffing plan, the price analysis, and the best-value tradeoff decision.

Evaluation of Bravura’s staffing plan: PingWind argued that Bravura’s staffing plan was unrealistic and should have received a weakness instead of a strength, particularly because the proposed labor rates were allegedly too low to retain incumbent personnel. GAO found that Army’s evaluation reasonable, as Bravura’s quote did not exclusively rely on hiring incumbent staff and included a comprehensive staffing approach with multiple recruitment strategies.

Price evaluation: PingWind contended that Bravura’s lower labor rates made its staffing plan unrealistic. GAO rejected this argument, noting that the solicitation did not require a price realism analysis and that Army’s price reasonableness analysis—comparing proposed prices to the IGCE—was appropriate.

Best-value tradeoff: GAO found Army’s best value tradeoff decision reasonable, as the agency justified selecting Bravura based on its strong technical proposal and lower price.

Protest denied. Army’s evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and FAR, and GAO found no basis to question the best value determination.

Digest

Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s staffing plan is denied where the record demonstrates the agency reasonably assessed a strength to the awardee’s staffing plan. Protest challenging agency’s price analysis is denied where the record shows that the price evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Protest that the agency failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency considered the relative merits of the offerors’ proposals in its source selection decision and protester otherwise fails to demonstrate that the tradeoff was unreasonable.