Free Administrative Record - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
02/08/2007 17:39 FAX 2028285383

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 1 of 25
~00SI015

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

SEYE__A~_.TH
D.

SHAW~,~

Mary G. Curcio, Esq. February 8, 2007 Page 8

The Agency's Failure To Properly Evaluate Offerors' Past Performance Prejudiced Olympus.

The agency made several material mistakes in evaluating Olympus' and Rowe's Past Performance. If the agency had performed a proper Past Performance

d. Even assuming for the purpose of argument only that Olympus' and Rowe's Technical proposals were equal, and that Rowe's price proposal did not present performance risk,s in the best value determination Olym would have offset Olympus' price which was II. mance rating rcent higher than Rowe's price.

The SSA Did Not Perform A Proper Cost/Technical Tradeoff When Selecting Rowe For Award, A, DIA Employed A "Technically Acceptable, Low Price" Approach Instead of the Cost/Technical Tradeoff Analysis Specified in the Solicitation.

As stated in Olympus' initial protest, the solicitation required the agency to perform "a trade-off analysis of non-price factors against price to determine the best value to the Government." AR, Tab 3, p. 40, It is evident from the record that DIA failed to perform this analysis prior to selecting Rowe for award. Once the agency mistakenly concluded that all offerors would receive overall "Excellent" ratings for their Technical proposals, the SSA made the award decision based solely upor~ Rowe's 10w price. The agency devotes only three paragraphs in the Agency Report to discussing the propriety of its trade-off analysis. The agency does not cite to any of the 37 attachments included in the s See, Olympus' Supplemental Protest, pp. 3-13.
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY( IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
DCI 30188934.1

961

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
02/0B/2(¢7 1739 FAX 2028285393

Document 15-40
SEVFARTH

Filed 05/12/2007
LLP

Page 2 of 25
010/015

SEYF___APx.TH

Mary G. Curcio, Esq. February 8, 2007 Page 9

Agcnacy Report as support for its assertion that the SSA conducted a proper cost/technical trade-off. Furthermore, the Agency Report does not address in any way Olympus' protest claim that the SSA failed to distinguish between the "Excellent" technical proposals to ensure that it was selecting the proposal that offered the best overall value. Had the SSA attempted to make meaningful distinctions between the merits of the offeror's technical proposals during the final stage of the evaluation process, the SSA would have recognized the clear superiority of Olympus' Technical Proposal over Rowe's Technical Proposal. As a result, in the best value decision the SSA would have determined that Olympus' proposal warranted the slight premium in price.6 An award decision is not reasonable where the agency bases it strictly on a mechanical comparison of the offerors' evaluation scores. Universal Building Maintcn.an.c.e., Inc., B-282456, July 15, 1999, 99-2 CPD ¶ 32 at 4; see also FAR §§ 12.602(c), 15.308. In Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.; Meridian Management Corp., B-281287.5, B~281287.6, B-287287.7, 2001 CPD ¶ 3, the protesters argued that the agency had failed to evaluate the relative technical merits of the proposals, and simply awarded the contract to the offeror with the lowest proposed price. Despite that the awardee had received slightly higher technical scores than the protesters (a perfect score of 900 points versus scores of 884 and 878 for Johnson Controls and Meridian respectively), the GAO sustained the protest on the ground that the agency had failed to follow the best val~e evaluation scheme included in the solicitation: The source selection decision document identifies only final point scores and price differences; it does not identify any differences in 6 As discussed in Olympus' Supplemental Protest, the extent of this price premium is debatable because Rowe failed to include rate increases for the price of the goods and services to be supplied during the option years.
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
30188934.1

962

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
02/08/2007 17'40 F/,X 2028285393

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 3 of 25
1~011/015

SEYFARTH SH,~,/~/ LLP

Mary G. Curcio, Esq. February 8, 2007 Page 10 technical merit. The evaluation record overall simply does not evidence consideration by the agency of differences between the proposals in technical merit., .Absent a reasonable evaluation of relative technical _merit, the_reeg.rd cannot support an award on other than a lowest price, technically acceptable basis, which is contrary to the terms of the RFP and.is improper. ~ (emphasis added). See also SOS Interpreting, LTD., B-293,026, B-293026.2, B-293026.3, 2005 CPD ¶ 26 ( award decision was unreasonable and inconsistent with the evaluation criteria where the SSA failed to consider the documented superiority of the protester's proposal when making the best value decision). Similarly, in this case, the Source Selection Decision Document ("SSDD") does not provide any evidence that the SSA considered the differences in technical merit between the proposals when making the award decision. While the SSDDrepeated verbatim the strengths and advantages of each proposal that the TEP had identified ~ SSDD, pgs. 9-11), the SSA's trade-off analysis failed to discuss why Olympus' proposal, offenng excellent solutions, an "extremely detailed schedule" and "very detailed" plans for performing the contract, was not more valuable to the Government than Rowe's proposal that offered, only a "detailed plan" and "realistic schedule." ld___:. Instead, the trade-off analysis was based solely on a mechanical consideration of the offerors' overall ratings and total proposed price: In a best value analysis, a_k c_o_mparison between Rowe and Olympus is not difficult. While both offerors received an "Excellent" in their Tcchnical evaluation factor, Olympus received a lower Past Performance rating the mer. Additionally, not only does Olympus propose a higher price more) than

PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
131721 3f118893t1.1

963

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 4 of 25

SEYE__AK_.TH '
Rowe, but it proposes this higher price while offering to employees than Rowe proposes to do the work]

Mary G. Curcio, Esq. February 8, 2007 Page 11

f five less

(SSDD, pg, 15). The SSA did not discuss the substantive differences between the proposals, nor did she explain why all of the proposals were entitled to overall "Excellent" ratings under the Tech.nical factor. Tlms, the SSA's consideration of the relative technical merit of the proposals was clearly deficient, and thus Olympus' protest must be sustained. B. DIA's Failure to Properly Perform A Cost/Technical Tradeoff Prejudiced Olympus.

As discussed above, the SSA was required to look beyond the overall evaluation ratings of the proposals and examine the proposals' relative technical merits before making a cost/technical trade-off decision. Rowe's assertion in its Motion to Dismiss that the agency was not required to perform this cost/technical trade-off simply because Rowe received high ratings and offered the lowest proposed price is contraryto GAO case law, as discussed above. If the SSA had performed the required cost/technical trade-off, she would have deterrnined that Olympus' proposal offered significant technical advantages over Rowe's incomplete and incoherent proposal, and that it warranted a three percent price premium. Instead, the SSA performed what was in essence a "technically acceptable, low price" analysis to the prejadice of Olympus whose technical proposal was clearly superior to Rowe's.

7 Olympus has also challenged, via its Supplemental Protest, DIA's application of an unstated evaluation criteria when it considered the number of employees offered in a proposal as indicating additional technical merit. Olympus will discuss this issue in detail in its Comments on the Supplemental Agency Report.
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
D(21 30188934.1

964

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
02/0812002 17:40 FAX 2028285393

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 5 of 25
~01~/015

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

SEYF _ _AP,,.TH
III.

Mary G. Curcio, Esq. February 8, 2007 Page 12

DIA's Best Value Decision Was Unreasonable Because It Was Based Upon Flawed Evaluations And An Irrational Trade Off. A, The SSA's Best Value Decision Was Fatally Flawed Because It Was Based Upon Irrational Past Performance Evaluations Of Olympus And Rowe.

In the Agency Report, D1A claims that there is no merit to Olympus' contention that the best value decision is unreasonable because Olympus' allegations are "factually incorrect.''8 AR, Tab 1, p. 10. To the contrary, we have demonstrated above that the record does not support the agency's conte~tion. Specifically, the record reveals that Olympus should have received an

The Contracting Officer argues that DIA's best value analysis was proper in view of the cure notice referenced in Wachenhut's Past Performance evaluation of Olympus:

when the awaxdee offered a superior capability at a lower price. AR, Tab 2, unnumbered p. 7. Again, the Contracting Officer's statement reveals a misunderstanding of the Past Pertbrmance record in this case.

However, the Contracting Ofricer, who also served as the

8 Olympus presents extensive evidence in the record showing that DIA's evaluation of Rowe's incomplete and incoherent Technical Proposal is unreasonable. Supplemental Protest, pp. 3-8.
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
DCI 30188934.1

965

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
02/08/2007 17:40 FAX 2026285393

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 6 of 25

SEYFP, RI6 SH/~,',Y LLP

SE_Y_FAR.T H
SSA, unreasonably refers to

Mary O. Curcio, Esq. February 8, 2007 Page 13
,

completely ignoring the substance of Olympus' and Rowe's actual Past Performance evaluations. B. The Agency's Best Value Decision Was Fatally Flawed Because it Took Account Of An Unstated Evaluation Factor.

Similarly, the Contracting Officer/SSA mistakenly relies on Rowe's "superior capability" as a discriminator in the best value decision, notwithstanding Rowe's poorer Past Performance evaluation, and incomplete arid incoherent Technical Proposal. (See, Supplemental Protest, pp. 38). In the Agency Report, DIA notes that " AR,

Tab 1, p. 11. In its Suppl~mental Protest, Olympus explains in detail the agency's error in using " offered as an evaluation factor in this performance-based procurement, because it is an unstated evaluation factor. Supplemental Protest, pp. 14-17. Thus, the use of as a discriminator in the best value decision was unreasonable. C. The Irrational Best Value Decision Prejudiced Olympus.

The prejudice Olympus suffered as a consequence of DIA's flawed best value decision is clear: if D1A had performed proper Technical and Past Performance evaluations, Olympus would have received higher scores in both areas than Rowe received. These higher scores would have more than offset the slight difference between OlympUs' and Rowe's prices. Therefore, DIA would have selected Olympus as the best value in this procurement.

PROTECTED MATERIALTO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCEWITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
DCI 30168934,1

966

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
02/08/2007 17:41 FAX 2028285393

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 7 of 25
~ O]b/O]b

SEVFARTH SHA~ LLP

s E_Y_F _AEx_.TH
CONCLUSION

Mary G. Curcio, Esq. February 8, 2007 Page ] 4

For the foregoing reasons, Olympus respectfully requests that the GAO sustain its protest and provide all other appropriate relie£ Respectfully submitted, 8EYFARTH SHAW LLP

Amanda Weiner Counsel for Olympus Building Services, Inc. LTC. Frank A. March Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq.

PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE \VITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
D~I 3018893a,1

967

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 8 of 25

SE_Y_FAKTH

815 Connecticut Aver~ue. Suite 500 Washington, D.C, 20006-4,004 (ZO2) 463-2~430 FaX (202) 828~393

Facsimile Transmission
Date: February 8, 2007 COMPANY PHONE NO. RECIPIENT

FAX NO.

LTC Frank A. March Ken Weckstein
FROM: PHONE: RE: File No: Grace Bateman (202) 828-5359

Defense Intelligence Agency

703-696-2826

703-696-1537 202-861-3560

Epstein Becker & Green

202-861-0900

REPLY FAX NO.: (202) 828-5393 24134.016 Number of Pa~es7 Includin~ Cover: 15

[] [] []
MESSACE:

Hard copy to follow Per your request Please telephone me

[] []

Hard copy will not follow Please review and reviseifnecessary

THE INFOILMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE lS CONFID~=NTIAL AND MAY ALSO CONTAIN PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION OR WORK PRODUCT. ~ IN'FORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USI~ OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITy TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, 1F YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RI3CIPIE~tT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFI13D THAT ANY USE, DISSI3MINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, IF YOU HAVE R-ECEIVED THE FACSIMILE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US ATTHE ADDRI~SS ABOVE VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, THANK YOU. ANY TAX INFORMATION OR wRI'I-FEN TAX ADVICE CONTAINED HEREIN (INCLUDINO ANY ATTACHNIIANTS) IS NOT INTENDED TO BE AND CANrb/OT BE USED ~Y ~NY~,TA.XPAYER FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING TAX PENALT[[3S THAT MAY BE Ib,IPOSED ON THE TAXPAYER. (THE FOREGOING LEGEND HAS BEEN AFFIXED PURSUANT TO U.S. TREASURY REGULATIONS GOVERNING TAX PRACTICE,)

"OU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE PHONE (202) ~163-2401] AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
DCI 30189168.1 / 24134-000016

968

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
12/~9/20o6 .13:18 FAX 20282B6393

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007 ~U~

~ ~1

Page 9 of 25 ~,UU~/U±~
~ oo~/o~z

s~YF~H SHAW.,

5O0

PROTECTED HATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY l~ ACCORD,~NCE ~ITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Dcczrmb~' 29, 200d

Gary L. K~pling~, Esq, G~nera] Counsel Government Ar.r.ountability Offi¢= 441 O Su~, NW PTomm of Olympus Building $~rvic~s, !nc., DIA Solicitation NcLHHM40~-0S-]~-0o~7 ~For ]an~t,orial Svrv~i,c~s. Drar Mr. Keppling¢~. We r~prrscst Olympus Building Semis, ~c.,~ ("O]ympus'~), an offeror in d~ above D~cnsc ~t=llige~c~ A¢¢=~,z ("DIA" or "agvaey') pmcm¢m=at forj~nitorial s¢r~ic= at the
Defxms¢ Iatclligenc~ Analysis Cea~ ('~DIAC") whioh is located at Boiling A~r Forr~ 8~s~ ia D.C. Oly~pusim'ore.~ DIA's awm~l ofa ¢on~ra~t For this rcqRir~le~;to Rowe

01~' co~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D~'s Con~c6ng 0~ is Ch~ j. ~ ~ ~on's mailing =d~ b V~a Coning Acd~W, ~ M~ B!~, Bu~'~00, Bo~ing ~rF~ Base. W~h~u, DC 203~51~. Ch~ PROTE~TED MATF~ TD B~ ]!.ELF.,AS~,D ONlY Protected Information To Be Disclosed Only In Accordance With United States Court of

Federal Claims Protective Order
12/2~/~00B FRI ~3:1B [TX/RX ~O @?2S] ~002

969

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-40
~EVFARTH

Filed 05/12/2007
LLP

Page 10 of 25
~ O03/QB~

K~pp!inger: ~q. 2006 P~ge 2
C~ Services, Inc. ("Rowe") based upon ~h~ a~cy's d~~on ~ Rowo's off~ to prz~ the~e s~ for a ~ ~ce of ~~

~ b~ for O!~p~" ~ I.

DTA did not p~r[y apply ~ ~fion ~ ~ ~ ~e solici~tion,

~e ~~u ~ ~ ~e w~ ~o non-~ev~uad~ f~: T~ ~ P~ P~o~ce. How~, D~ ~id~ offeror" P~t P~o~ce ~ once ~ a "~b.

b~ h w~ b~ upon ~n~us p~t ~o~ ~f~fi~

3.

DIA did ~t ~ a pm~ ~ v~ ~is b~~ ins~ of

solid~flo~ D~ ~o~ a "~ni~lly a~t~l~ low price" ~we ~r

~s ~ ~ freely fil~ wi~ five da~ of De~b~ 27, 20~,

I~RO~ b[A~ TO Bg'IeYJ.JU~I~D ONIY
IN A~U"~O]~/~~ II/]TH GAO ]r~OTECTIV~

970

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
12/28/200B 13;1~ FAX 20282B53~3

Document 15-40
SEYFARTN

Filed 05/12/2007
LLP

Page 11 of 25

.... SEYF,&KTH __

K~ling~ Esq, 29,

FROTEC'rED MXTI~&~L TO BE RELK~ED OIlY r~ ~CORDAN~'E ~ GXO PROTECTIVE OIIDEI&

971

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007
LLP

Page 12 of 25

SEYFAK H
and distingt ~valuation fairs, and th,,r~or~ offerors were m ~:ludm ~ P~~ee in~afion

pm~d~ su~l~ ~fo~atioa on ~e agmcy's Evflu~on Pl~- ~ s~c~0n mfifl~ For ~ct Awed" agMn s~ ~t ~ w~e t~ no~fi~ ~Muafion fa~: T~ ~d P~t P~~, ~ soli~it~ion ~o~d~ ~at of~e ~pfi¢= factor~, T~i~ w~ mor~

im~t ~ Pfi¢~ Soli~m6o~ p- 40.

~) Soun~ of Approach. Solici~ pp, 40~1. It ~o pm~d~ ~m the o~ non-~e fmor, Fat P~0~, would ~ ~M~ on ~= ~ of~ec ~~: (1) Pm~ M~ag~t

C. The Sofi~on C~ For A B~ V~ue T~d~ B~een ~e Md

So~ta~o~ p. ~. ~c ~oli~on did not s~t~ ~ relative W~ ofT~,?~ P~o~ ~ P~cc ~ ~e ~ua~o~ howev~, ~: E~on PI~ ~d~ notice ~at D~ ~idc~ non-

~ Tt~ Add~ndam lists the.~ Pa~t Soltgltation, p. 41,

l~tO~D M.aTIr~:~AL ~ ;al~ i~L]l:,~i~ O~rLY

972

JAN-U4-~.UU'( lb : ~b

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-40
SEYFARTH

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 13 of 25 ~.UUb/UI~
~ o0~/o32

12/29/2006 13:19 F^)< 202B285393

SEYFAR.TH
non-pri~e fl~:~rs, ~hni¢~! is more importer than P~c

200.6

So~o~ p. 40, (~p~ addS).

¯ ~ ~It~ a ~pefifive r~c ~isti~ of five off~o~ including Ol~p~ ~d Rowe.

D~ soliei~o~ at ~ to~ p~ of $ HL D~ ~valna~ O~ers Md S~ed Rowe For ~a~t Award.

r~g~ ~ ultimately s¢l~ Rowe ~r a~ Pfi0r to ~1~ ~w¢~ ~ NOS~T ~ing S~ ~HOSLO~'), for a~d, How~,

pm~ ~e ~ to NOSLOT. In ~o~e to OI~pus' p~t~ D~ took ~e a~on by

Peffomance Du~ng The I~6~ ~alua~a Of Propo~h.

973

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
12/29/200g 13118 FAX 202B295383

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 14 of 25 UUI/Ui~ i'.

SEYFAKTH ¯
¯ "]D~CELLEN'r." (Dcbriefl~ I, Attachment A.) "J'~ d=brle~Jng states1 that Olymp~" mm proposal had six specifi= Advantag~ and no DLuulvamag=s.* The six specific Adv~tages focused on aspecc~ ofOl~' tec.tmJca] proposal, indudlng schc.duling~ pl~n~, e~mploy=cs" security ~earantm., orJ~t~tion ~d ~i~~~ or~a~o~ ~d s~~ty a~ess ~in~g. A~em

~ng ~s ~M ~ua~o~ D~ prop~y =clu~ P~t P~o~ ~~t~ it ~mid=~ in ~M~ng 01~' t~i~ prop~ betas= P=t P~~ w= a s~mte ~n~ce evfluafion f~r. ~ debfi~g m~ly na~ ~m D~ ~d

A~=nt A, p. I. C. D~ Seleet~ R~e For AwaY; O~us ~me~ ~U~ A Deb~e~ng;

By 1~ ~ D~h~ 19, 2006, D~ i~=d ~ o~ ~n

o~ ~in ~c ~~v= ~ ~ ~at Row~'s ~posal w~ d~t~in~ to ~ ~e ~t v~uc

DIA ~~ A Se~ad Debr~flng To O~mpus. Wi~eut Expla~on~ The Semnd Debriefing S~ ~at O~pus' Pe~erm~ ~fing W= Do~ed From uExee~ea~ To "~." DIA pm~ ~ =~nd d~fio~g m Ol~p~ by ]=t~ dst~ ~b~ 27, 2~6. ¯ (D~fe~ ~ A~~t C.) ~ ~e D~r 27, 2006 deb~ ~~K D~ indi~ it ~ #~ Ol~pus ~ '~=ellent'" ~ ~t T~~i~l, but ~at it ~ do~~ O!~'

974
12/29/200B FRI 13:1B ETX/RX H0 9729] ~007

JA~-U~-~UUY iD:~b 12/29/200~ 1@'1S FAX

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
202B285393

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007 ~U~

~i

Page 15 of~.UU~/UI~ 25 Z~I
~ OOSlO~2

Gary L- K~plinger, Esq. D~;¢mb~ 29, 20{)6 Page 7
Past Pe~o~c~ zati~, DL4. 5~rth~ iz~eated tl~ it gave

ratings for Tec~.ical and Past Performanc~, and had d~rninczl Rnwe's 0ff©r, at a ~ ~ of

~e debriefing do~t ~ ~t~ ~t ~e ~lstive ~g of ~ o~ WaS u ~ows:
All f~ur (4) firm1 offla'or~ nmt~ved "F.XCELLtgNT'" ratings on t~hnitatl proposals. Thr~ of flmm received "F.XCEL&,ENT" ratings onPast Petfornlance Qu~srionrtt~-ca attd on= tt:cmiv~ [sic] rati~@ ..... The Govmuueat fomu! Olympm' T=:ahnic.sl proposal to be 'q~XCELLENT" ami ~= Past P~a'form~¢~" Attae.hrnemt C, On informatiott ar~4 belief, based ttpon this ranking, Olympus is nc~t in lin~ for

award arm" B.
The Second DebrieFing Revealed That DIA Mistakeidy Considered Perfomaa©e lit Bo~ The Tee.h~lic~ai And Past P~formaace Evaluations,

The debriefing also rm~e.al=t that imt~d offoIlowing th= Eval~mfion Plan stated in
,olidtafion whit~h identified TecI~¢al arid Past PaformanCm ~ t~ two tmn-1~rie.~ gvaluation

factors, DIA had mnsidered Past Pm-fomaance t, wiee: once as a separate non-price evalmition factor, anti a seeoml time ~ a '%-'ub-sub.fa~mr" in the Toctmie.al evaluation. Without ~planarion or any ¢itadon to ~h¢ ~oltcitation, DIA stat~ that the TecJmiea! Evaluation Pmel ('q'EP') had applied the f~ll0wing evaluation ~aitcria:

~ A~'ORI~AI~e~. wrrl~ GAO Pit0TZC'rrvg

975

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 16 of~,UU~/UI~ 25
~ 0o8to32

SEVFARTH SHAW LLP

Oary L K~l~g~r= Esq. Dec~nber 29, 2006 Page 8
th= requhxmenu of the Soli=itafion, It s~u~ ~ ~t~ ~e ~P

The S~ond ~br~g R~ed That D~ Had R~ U~B M~en Iuforma~on ~ ~g Past Morn ~sm~y, ~e se~nd dc~g ~ ~at not~t~di~ ~at D~ gave

D.

~e S~nd D~bfl~= ~o ~veal~ ~az D~ Had ~ot Made A P~per

Spc=~caIly, DU~ not=d ~ after detmm~iBg ~at all four off=o~ ~e d~ to P~C~ ~~ TO B~ ~LEAS~ O~Y ~ ACCO~CE ~ ~0 ~O~ O~

976

Case 15:~6 AZ-ZA JAN-O&-20071:07-cv-00243-LMB 12/29/ZQQ8 18:2o FA~ 2026%85383

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007zuz Page 17 of 25 z~z zu~l

SEYFA~,

Oar,/L. K~pling©r, E~. D~bm" 29, 2006

be ~senti~lly ~qu~l bn.~od upon thcir "Excc|l~m" T~ ~~, D~ s~ ~o~e ~r

LEG~ ~G~NT

GAO W~ ~e ~e ~ncy~s Evelus~ Of Propos~ To C~ ThaJ It Is ~son~]e ~d In Ac~rd~ce WJ~ The ~uafion C~a I~ ~e

~inc ~o ~'5 ~on ~ =ns~e ~ tt ~ m~n~le ~d in ac~rd~~ ~th ~e RFP

T~olo~Inc.. B-232589.2~ 89-I CPD ~ 66; Abt ~t~, B-237~.2, 9~I CPD ~ 2~.

PP.OT'E~TED MA,'rER1AL TO BE ~KLEASED ONLY 1"~ ~CCOP.DANC~ ~ GAO I'ROTECTIVE

977
12/2s/ZOOS F~Z 13:1~ !TX/RX NO ~72~! ~OlO

JAN-04-2007 15:46 ]~/E~/2ooB 13:2o FA~

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB Document 15-40 AE-ZA
20282@5393

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 18 of 25 P.Oll/O19

SEYFAR. ¯ ¯
B. Tile Evaluafiou Of Offers Was ~ot Reasonable ~e E~lua~ou Plan S~d ~ The Sofidtadon.

Gary L Keppliag~, Esq. Dec, ember 29, 2006 Pagc 10

The E~luaflon Plan ~sly
g~uafion F~ors: T~b~I And ~ P~o~.

~luation f~r. ~is ~l~tion sch~u w~ ~n~ to ~c ~ci~on~s s~ di~ for

~o ~ato s~o~ of~ir p~e~s, Soli~fio~ Pm~h 6, p. ]7.

d~ in ~=ir Tc~! pm~s~s ~w ~ey would ~ 7 ~ 8 of~= solid.ration by pro~d~~~. ~~ ~d org~don~

FROTgCTI~ M.~TERI,~ TO BE P,.ELX;ASE'D ~ ACCOl~.g W~TH GAO P~OTEL-I'IVE

978

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 19 of 25

__SEYFAKTH , ......

Gary L Kcpplingcr, Esq. December 29, 2006 Page 11

I~ROTECTgD MATERIAL TO BE I~I.EASED ONLY

IN ACCORI)ANCE WIT~ C:AO I~KO'tECTIvE ORDF.~

979

~AN-04-2007 15~7

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

AE-2A

Document 15-40
SEYFARTH

Filed 05/12/2007 231 2831 of 25 Page 20 202 P.012/018
LLP ~ a~3/032

Dcceanb~r 29, 2006

I'ROT~CTEJD H.~'r~/AL TO ~,E RII;LX=~S£D ONLY

980

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 21 of 25

.... SE~AKTH ,,
prot~t s~uld be s~in~ on ~ b~i= ~lone.

Gary L, K~pling~r, Esq.
Dec~rnb=" 29, 2006 Pa&,e 13

of proposal =va]u~don~),* =leady prejudic, cd Ol~p= in ~ ~~L ~£er~

DIA ~ To ProUd= Ot~pus The Op~ui~ To C~r~ P~r ~ ~o~ance ~fo~fiOn Indud~ lu The Ques~nn~e

alleg~ in D~'s $~ debfi~ng 1~, D~ shoed ~ve prodded Ol~p~ ~ oppo~W ~0~ m ~. poo~ ~t p~o~ inflation ~el~ i~ one of~e ~PAR ~ 15.3~a~) (~ ~t w~ aw~ b to be ~ ~ ondu~ing off~ ~ b. #yen ~e o~iW w ~fy ~se p~t p~o~ off.or ~ not p~ou~y hM ~ o~w to r~ond). ~le ~e GAO h~ ~o- does not r~i~ ~ ag~cy ~ mmm~ca~ ~ ~ offer on~mi~ ~~ in~o~ it ~ ~ ~ agra's ~se ofdi~on m ~e ~at ~onabi¢ b~ ~ the p~ ~~ of~e ¯ Wi~ ~d ~ific~y W ~fi~ad~ ~n~ng adv~e p~o~ info~ation m ~ the ~dor ~ not p~o~ly

Umt~ ~~ B-291978,2, 2~3 ~D ~ 146 (~ph~ ~ ~S ~ DIA clemly shoed ~ qm~ou~ ~e v~ of~e p=t p~o~ce ~~on ~ in ~e s~nd d~fing IcU~ b~=e ~s ~fo~ion w~ totally

I:ICI 3OlBSgO.t !

981
12[2~/20oE F~I 13:18 ~Tx(R~ NO ~728~ ~ 01~

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
12/29/2006 13;20 FAX 202B285383

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 22 of 25 ~ o15/o3~

Gary L K~plin&,ee, ]~sq. Dec~nber 29, 2006 Page 14 h r~:ived m:'~xcelle~t" past performance rating aa part of the Technical factor evaJuavlon (whethm or rmt it was prope=: ~r th~ agency to do ~o), wh~ ehe ager~cy rcc~ved ~ in.t'or~a~ion
about Olympus' alleged poor past pefformanc~ h shoold hav~ raised this issue with Olympus

FAg I$.306(a)(2) provide. lII.
DIA Did Not Perform A Proper Cost/I=rl=e-Teehnlcal TradmiT Whelt ]t Selected Rowe For Award. DIA Performed a '~feelmically Aegeptalde, Low Prken Aaaly~b, Instead O[ Tl~e ~*Costfreehair.ai Trade~fP~ Altsl~is Specified In The Sol~.itatiolt, "I1~e ~oli~imtion also provides clear notic~ ~o offt~urs th~t the "Gowrr~t will l:~d'orm a trade-off analysis of non.price £~:ora affair, st ln'Jc.e to determine the b~st value to the GovvmmcnL'° Solicitation, p. 40, Th~ allalysis mtkqt bc pCt't'orrn=d in ===m]~~ with FAR iS.101~] : (b) When esizgg a tradeoffproc~s, ~e following apply:

(I) All evaluation factur~ and signif!:ant subfacmr~ will a_ffee~ conm~t awm'd and their ~.lativ~ importance shall be ¢l~atIy s~ted in the ~olicir.~ion; and (2) The soli=imtion shall staze,~neth=r all evaIuatlon factors oth¢~ than ~ost or pri=, wh=n cembin~xL me significantly mor~ impoxtant'than, approximately equa! to, o~ significantly lms impml~t than c~st erprice.

(emphasis a~tded). Thus, Olympus, md the oth~ off, rots, ~~asonably expe~exl DIA ~0 perform. :mc, h a trade~ff s~slysis_

DIA did not perform a proper tradeoff analysis. R is ~-vident from r.he record that DIA
a~xtally p~formcd a "'lowest pric~ rzclmically acczptabld' mufly~is, m~ outlined in FAR 15.101-2. I~RD~ MATER.tAL TO llg RELRAb~D ONLY IN ACCORDANCE; WITH GAO I~ROTE~ OP.DE~

982

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB J~N-O~-~O07 15:48 AE-ZA

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007 Z~I ~i of 25 ZUZ Page 23

GaryL. gq)pltng~, Esq, Dvmanb~r 29, 2006 Page 15 When the Gov~t int~ds ~o pcaform no~~ O~ ~s pl~ ev~ua~on s~e in ~e Solid'on; ~) ~ ~g ~ lower pfic= t~lly a~ptable (I) ~ ~uatioa solid.riOt, Sotici~ sk~t

The ~ dehfiofing ~ ~t D~ h~ ~~ ~at ~ ~~ pmp=~s of ~o or

acc~=ble. A~m~t A, ~. 1-1 D~ &¢n p~~ m m~e ~ aw~ d~ion b=~ u~n low ~. D~ a~ to have ~aduct~ m~g ~ later awed w Rowe.

It ~ ~d for ~ out of 6v= ~r ~r Teo~i~ ~s~. Sp=ifl~~ly,

~ong ~th =ppmp~gte s~po~ ~ve, ofea~ t~i~l preach1 ~ing ~o~." ~ D~ s~ ~ve ~0vid~ such a its f~i~ to do s= in~ ~at no

~S~ ~ did not ~s~i~e ~ong ~, ~ng ~ four of~ '~x~t." D~ lh~

983

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
FAX

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

W,UIS/UI~ Page 24 of 25

SEYFARTH SH~ LLP

SEYFA~TH .....

SHAW

29, 2006

proc~ed~i to make ma ,,ward deci~i0n based soldy on prico, DIA is not p~hibJt~l 5~om

o~ ~t ~ in~ m p~ a "~i~lly ~le, low p~ce" avalu~on ~ ~Iaw o~rors

D~'s derision gO ~ o~ b~ ~ a '~i~ly a~table, low ~ ~pmu~ "

01~ r¢~onably ass~ &g D~ would ~off Ol~p~" Ex~t

d~ision. ~t~, D~ c~d~ low pfi¢~ to b~ ~e mo~ ~po~t ~u~on h~or.
DIA's B~ V~ue D~r~afl~ ~ Unr~sonable ~use It Wa. Based U~n The Flaw~ T~ni~l ~d P~t P~omanec E~luaflom ~nd U~n ~ Ir~flonal Cos~T~ni~ T~adeoff. A. A ~ V~ue ~~n~on ~ U~nable If It ~ B~ed On ~lawed

FAR ~15.302 pmViS~ ~a~ "[~ obj~o of so~ s~fion i~ ~ts ~v b~ ~." ~s obj~ve ~ot b~ a~ev~ wh¢n ~ a~'s d~ion is

~~ on ~~ te~ p~o~ ds~ or c~p~ ~v~uadons.

B-2~2~ 2~2 CPD ~ 146 ~a~s ~ ~l~ioa ~on W~ ~~hle wh~ ~a Na~'s

IN AC~OgDANCE ~ OAO PROTg~T/V~ ORDER

984

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-40

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 25 of 25

SEYFARTH SHA~ LLP

SEYFA1K.. TH '
pri~ dikers'nee"); ~.h=~l. IMS, B-248686, 92-2 ~D

Gary I~, Kepplinger, Esq. D~cmber 29, 2006

B-252235.2, 93-2 CPD

B-247225.3.92-2 CPD

179 ~ s~tain~ wh~ ~e ag~¢y =v~io~). B. D~ Condu~ ~p~r Technic! ~d Paat Pe~orms== Ev~a~ou~.

~i~ for ~=

¢vidmttions wer= in th~mselv~ unrc~on~le.

985