ITility, LLC
B-421871.3

• The protester argued that the Department of Homeland Security had unreasonably assessed the awardee a “positive” based on an incorrect understanding of what the awardee had proposed.
• Specifically, the protester argued that, while the Agency assigned a positive for an element of the awardee’s proposal relating to enterprise risk management (“ERM”), the awardee’s proposal actually used ERM to refer to enterprise resource management.
• According to the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), the Agency did not substantively refute this allegation, so GAO sustained the protest.
• GAO also agreed with the protester that the Agency unreasonably evaluated offers in two other respects:
  1. First, the Agency unreasonably found that both the protester and awardee met key personnel requirements, when the protester had offered personnel that met qualifications identified in the RFP as “preferred.”
  2. Second, the Agency found that the protester’s transition plan “met the requirements,” but failed to document any qualitative evaluation of the proposed plan, including the protester’s plan to have the contract fully staffed by Day 1 as the incumbent.
• In both instances, GAO agreed that the Agency had ignored a potential discriminator in favor of the protester and sustained the protest grounds.