Mike Nartker
WC Monitor
2/13/2015
The Government Accountability Office this week released its decision denying the protest Portage filed against Navarro Research and Engineering’s win of the new Nevada National Security Site environmental programs services contract. Navarro and Portage had been the two highest-rated offerors of the five teams that bid on the contract, which was set-aside for small businesses, according to the GAO decision. Navarro’s bid was rated as “excellent” in each of the four evaluation criteria used for the procurement for the new contract—technical approach; key personnel; corporate experience; and past performance—as well as rated “excellent” overall, the GAO decision says. Portage received an overall “excellent” rating for its bid, and largely received “excellent” ratings in the evaluation criteria, though it only received a “good” rating for corporate experience.
However, Navarro’s bid was determined to be slightly more expensive than Portage’s—$58.78 million versus $57.56 million. The GAO decision notes that the Source Evaluation Board for the procurement assigned “a total of 8 significant strengths and 8 strengths in support of the ratings” for Navarro’s bid, and “ a total of 11 significant strengths, 8 strengths, and 1 weakness in support of the ratings” for Portage’s bid. The decision goes on to say, “The SSA concluded that Navarro’s proposal was superior to Portage’s under the technical approach and corporate experience factors. … Further, the SSA found that Navarro’s noncost advantages outweighed Portage’s $1.2 million cost advantage, and that Navarro’s proposal represented the best value to the government all factors considered.”
In its protest, Portage had raised “numerous issues” regarding how the National Nuclear Security Administration had evaluated bids and made an award decision, according to the GAO. “First, the protester alleges the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ technical approach proposals was unequal and employed an unstated evaluation criterion. Portage also alleges that the agency’s evaluation of Navarro’s key personnel, corporate experience, and past performance was improper. Further, Portage contends that the agency’s evaluation of Navarro’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI) was unreasonable. Lastly, Portage alleges that the agency’s best value tradeoff decision was flawed and contrary to the RFP,” the GAO said, going on to add, “We have considered all the issues and arguments raised by the Portage protest and, although we do not address them all, find they provide no basis on which to sustain the protest.”
