Solvere Technical Group, LLC

Decision

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

Matter of: Solvere Technical Group, LLC

File: B-423785

Date: December 18, 2025

William A. Shook, Esq., The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, for the protester.
Paul D. Hawkins, Esq., and Ryan J. Starks, Esq., Gentry Locke Attorneys, for EHS Technologies Corporation, the intervenor.
Toya H. Davis, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal under personnel approach element of the technical factor and under the cost factor is sustained where record shows the evaluation was inconsistent with the solicitation.

DECISION

Solvere Technical Group, LLC (Solvere), a woman-owned small business (WOSB) of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to EHS Technologies Corporation (EHS), a WOSB of Moorestown, New Jersey, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N00174-24-R-3002-0003, issued by the Department of the Navy's Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Indian Head Division (IHD) for information technology (IT) services. Solvere challenges the evaluation of its own proposal under both the non-cost and cost factors and contends these evaluation errors resulted in an unreasonable best-value tradeoff.

We sustain the protest.

BACKGROUND

On July 24, 2024, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation as a 100 percent WOSB set-aside to holders of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the Navy's SeaPort Next Generation (NxG) multiple award contract vehicle. Agency Report (AR) Encl. 4, Request for Proposals (RFP) at 1, 4, 108, 110.[1] The solicitation explained the NSWC IHD requires IT “support services to accomplish its mission of collection, analysis, development, and dissemination of data and information.” Id. at 8. Specifically, the Navy sought:

Information Assurance (IA) services to ensure the Secret Internet Protocol (SIPR) network, Defense Research Engineering Network (DREN), Secret Defense Research Engineering Network (SDREN), NSWC IHD Business and Command systems, Navy Marine Corps Intranet Science and Technology (NMCI S&T), unclassified and classified standalone systems, Platform Information Technology (PIT), and applications and systems are in compliance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 8510.01 Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD [IT].

Id.

The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee level‑of‑effort task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 56, 92, 110. The solicitation provided award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; (3) cost; and (4) contract documentation. Id. at 111. Three elements comprised the technical factor: (A) technical approach; (B) management approach; and (C) personnel approach. Id. The solicitation established that the technical factor was more important than past performance, and these two factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost.[2] Id. The contract documentation factor would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and would “not have any relative importance weighting.” Id.

The agency received six timely proposals, including those submitted by Solvere and EHS. AR Encl. 7, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 3. The agency evaluated Solvere's and EHS's proposals as follows:

	Solvere	EHS
Technical Approach	Acceptable	Good
Past Performance	Satisfactory Confidence	Substantial Confidence
Total Evaluated Cost	$60,008,355	$75,552,286
Contract Documentation	Pass	Pass

Id. Based upon the evaluations and a comparative assessment of the proposals, the source selection authority (SSA) selected EHS for award after concluding “the technical advantages of EHS's proposal” would “increase mission effectiveness” and justified paying the firm's associated price premium. Id. at 25.

This protest followed.[3]

DISCUSSION

Solvere challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the personnel approach element of the technical factor and under the cost factor as inconsistent with the solicitation. Additionally, Solvere contends the agency's best-value tradeoff was unreasonable due to the underlying evaluation errors. For the reasons explained below, we sustain the protest on these bases.[4]

Technical Factor--Personnel Approach

Relevant here, the solicitation established a mandatory labor mix and prescribed the number of labor hours to be provided--174,720 labor hours per performance year for a total of 873,600 labor hours over the possible 5-year life of the order. RFP at 5; Protest attach. 4, RFP attach. 4, Personnel Qualifications at 1. Under the personnel approach element of the technical factor the solicitation required offerors to submit a staffing plan indicating how they proposed to provide the prescribed number and types of personnel. RFP at 102. Offerors were to submit their staffing plans using the format provided in attachment 3 of the RFP, and were instructed to “use ‘TBD' for non-key positions that do not have identified personnel.”[5] Id.; Protest attach. 3, RFP attach. 3, Staffing Plan Template at row 35. The agency would “evaluate the extent to which the staffing plan addresses the labor hours identified in Section B and proposed personnel are able to perform all aspects of the SOW [statement of work]” and “the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a staffing plan and key personnel that are qualified, experienced, and suitable for performing the requirements.” RFP at 112.

Further relevant, the “Personnel Requirements” section of the solicitation provided “[t]he Contractor shall ensure all personnel assigned to this task order accessing information systems” comply with various defense department “policies relevant to Cyber Workforce (CWF).” RFP at 11. This section also set forth that contracted personnel “should have the proper and current information assurance and operating system certification to perform Cyber IT/Cybersecurity, network development, and system administration functions prior to performance.” Id. Additionally, the solicitation established the contracting officer's representative “must be made aware of an employee's [CWF] Level prior to coming aboard to the contract.” Id. at 10. Further, the “Security” section of the solicitation stated that in accordance with “DoD 8570.01-M, performance requirements will be set at the Information Assurance Technical Level (IAT) II and all training and certification specifications are required to be met within 6 months for any currently contracted employee and must be met within 6 months of any newly reporting personnel being assigned.” Id. at 38.

The record reflects the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) assessed a significant weakness for Solvere's personnel approach for two related reasons. AR Encl. 2, Technical Evaluation Report (Tech. Eval. Rpt.) at 6. First, the evaluators found Solvere's staffing plan listed [DELETED] positions “with no CWF certificates,” and that these positions represented a “significant portion” of Solvere's staff. The evaluators noted “[t]he Solicitation emphasized that Offerors should attempt to minimize the number of proposed labor personnel for which candidates have not been identified.” Id.

Second, the evaluators referenced the solicitation's requirement of compliance with DoD 8570.01-M and stated that in accordance with that manual “Contractor personnel supporting IA functions . . . shall obtain the appropriate DoD‑approved IA baseline certification prior to being engaged.” Id. Taken together, the SSEB concluded this meant “contractor employees are required to come onboard already certified, if they are not, they cannot have proper access and cannot support the contract.” Id. The evaluators expressed concern this could “result in our systems becoming non-compliant due to the inability to scan and patch systems, resulting in the suspension or termination of the system's ATO [authority to operate],” which could “lead to significant disruptions in business operations and could halt RDT&E [research development test and evaluation] work for EOD [explosive ordnance disposal] tools, Energetics and Manufacturing.” Id.

The protester challenges the assessment of this significant weakness. As an initial matter, agencies are required to evaluate proposals based solely on the factors identified in the solicitation. PAE National Security Solutions, LLC, B-419207.2 et al., May 19, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 205 at 3. While agencies properly may apply evaluation considerations not expressly identified in the solicitation, those considerations must be reasonably and logically encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria. Id. In reviewing protests of an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate proposals; rather, we review the record to determine whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and with applicable procurement laws and regulations. CACI, Inc.--Fed., B-422774, B-422774.2, Oct. 18, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 257 at 12. While we do not substitute our judgment for that of the agency, we will sustain a protest if the agency's conclusions are inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria, undocumented, or not reasonably based. Sayres & Assocs. Corp., B-408253, B‑408253.2, Aug. 1, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 206 at 4.

Solvere contends the evaluators incorrectly read the solicitation as requiring that offerors “should attempt to minimize the number of proposed labor personnel for which candidates have not been identified,” asserting that no such requirement exists in the RFP, nor is such a requirement “reasonably related to the terms of the Solicitation's evaluation factor for Personnel Approach.” Protest at 11. The protester argues that, unlike for key personnel, no provision of the solicitation required offerors to identify, by name, non-key positions. Id. According to Solvere,

[s]uch a material misstatement by the [evaluators] and the [SSA] is clear evidence that the Contracting Agency made the evaluation and award decision trade-off on a factually inaccurate finding and on an improper and unstated basis and evaluation factor, i.e., the number of personnel positions for which an offeror did not identify the proposed individual.

Comments at 10.

The agency maintains that Solvere's reliance “on a phrase that doesn't appear word-for-word in the Solicitation attempts to elevate form above the Navy's underlying substance and intelligent decision making.” Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 5. Specifically, the agency argues that because “the Solicitation required an evaluation of ‘the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a staffing plan and key personnel that are qualified, experienced, and suitable for performing the requirements,” the evaluators reasonably expressed concern “that the Protester relied heavily on a workforce of TBD hires” and as a result “the Navy had no factual basis to assess the proposed workforces' qualifications, experience and suitability” for Solvere's “largely unidentified” personnel. Id. at 6.

When a protester and agency disagree over the meaning of solicitation language, we will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions. HumanTouch, LLC, B‑419880 et al., Aug. 16, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 283 at 6. An interpretation is not reasonable if it fails to give meaning to all of a solicitation's provisions, renders any part of the solicitation absurd or surplus, or creates conflicts. CACI, Inc.--Fed., supra at 9. Here, the Navy's interpretation of the solicitation is not reasonable as it fails to give meaning to the solicitation's provision expressly permitting offerors to propose TBD personnel.

Relevant here, our Office recently considered nearly identical solicitation language for issuance of another Navy Seaport NxG task order. See CACI, Inc.--Fed., supra at 6. In CACI, the NSWC--the same agency as here--issued a solicitation to Seaport NxG IDIQ contract holders seeking to issue a task order for personnel to provide various workforce management, logistics, and business operation support services. Id. at 2. Similar to the RFP at issue here, the solicitation in CACI required offerors to submit a staffing plan and advised the agency would evaluate “the extent to which the staffing plan addresses the labor hours” required, the extent to which “proposed personnel are able to perform all the aspects of the SOW/PWS [performance work statement],” and “the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a staffing plan and key personnel that are qualified, experienced, and suitable for performing the requirements.” Id. at 8. The solicitation in CACI also permitted offerors to propose “TBD for non-key positions that [did] not have identified personnel.” Id.

The protester in CACI challenged the agency's evaluation of the awardee's non-key personnel, arguing the Navy failed to assess whether the awardee's non-key personnel were qualified to perform the SOW requirements. CACI, Inc.--Fed., supra at 9. There, the NSWC asserted that the nearly identical solicitation provision established different proposal submission requirements and evaluation assessments for key and non-key personnel, and that the solicitation's express permission for offerors to propose non-key personnel as TBD made clear the Navy did not intend to, and in fact could not, assess the qualifications of these unidentified personnel to perform the SOW requirements. Id. at 10.

We noted in CACI that the solicitation was not a model of clarity, and that at first blush, the instruction for offerors to propose staffing that met the requirements of the personnel qualifications set forth in an RFP attachment--coupled with the criterion that the agency would evaluate an offeror's “staffing plan and key personnel”--might appear to suggest that the Navy was required to evaluate every proposed non-key person to determine if they met the requisite qualifications, as argued by the protester. CACI, Inc.--Fed., supra at 11. We found, however, that such a reading would fail to give effect to the language in the solicitation that allowed offerors to use unidentified TBD employees for non-key personnel positions. We observed that if we read the solicitation to require the agency to assess the qualifications of every single non-key person, then an offeror's proposal of a TBD employee--without any identified qualifications--would create an absurd situation in which the solicitation permitted offerors to submit proposals that would be impossible for the Navy to evaluate in accordance with the solicitation. Id. Accordingly, we rejected the protester's interpretation and agreed with the Navy that the express permission for offerors to propose TBD non-key personnel made clear the evaluation would not include an assessment of the qualifications of non-key personnel that were identified as TBD. Id.

Here, the positions of the parties are reversed, with the Navy now arguing that the solicitation's evaluation criteria contemplated an assessment of the extent to which all personnel proposed by an offeror were qualified, experienced, and suitable for performing the SOW requirements, and the protester contending such an evaluation is inconsistent with the solicitation's allowance for offerors to propose TBD personnel for non-key positions. As in CACI, we find such an interpretation--that the solicitation evaluation criteria encompasses an assessment of the qualifications of each proposed staff member--fails to give meaning to the solicitation provision expressly permitting offerors to propose TBD non-key personnel, whose qualifications are, by definition, unknown.[6] Id.; see also Patrona Corp., B-423282, Apr. 18, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 106 at 12-13 (finding language requiring agency to evaluate extent to which “staffing plan and key personnel are qualified, experienced, and suitable for performing the requirements” in another Seaport NxG task order solicitation “appears to suggest the agency was required to evaluate the individual qualifications of all non-key personnel” but such a reading “fail[ed] to give effect to the solicitation language as a whole,” which was “not a model of clarity”); cf. Qi Tech, LLC, B-416711.8, B-416711.9, Nov. 27, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 412 at 8 (denying protest challenging evaluation of risk associated with number of TBD positions under workforce factor in a Seaport first generation task order competition where RFP provided for evaluating “the adequacy of an offeror's plan to support all areas of the SOW with qualified personnel” and specifically included evaluation of “staffing implementation risks and risk mitigations proposed”).

Moreover, we find unreasonable the agency's contention that the evaluators properly assessed Solvere's personnel approach based on the solicitation's emphasis “that Offerors should attempt to minimize the number of proposed labor personnel for which candidates have not been identified”--where no such emphasis appears anywhere in the RFP. AR Encl. 2, Tech. Eval. Rpt. at 6. Rather, the solicitation instructed only that “Offerors shall use ‘TBD' for non-key positions that do not have identified personnel.” RFP at 102. Nothing in this instruction or in the personnel approach evaluation criteria delineated above put offerors on notice that they should limit their use of TBD positions or risk having their proposals downgraded.

While agencies properly may apply evaluation considerations that are not expressly outlined in the RFP if those considerations are reasonably and logically encompassed within the stated evaluation criteria, there must be a clear nexus between the stated and unstated criteria. Raytheon Co., B-404998, July 25, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 232 at 15-16. An agency may not give importance to specific factors, subfactors, or criteria beyond that which would reasonably be expected by offerors reviewing the stated evaluation criteria. Risk Analysis & Mitigation Partners., B-409687, B-409687.2, July 15, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 214 at 6.

Here, the Navy's position that it was reasonable for the evaluators to assess a significant weakness in Solvere's proposal for including too many TBD personnel (whose qualifications the agency was unable to review) is inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria and creates an irrational result in which the protester was penalized for following the solicitation instruction to complete the staffing plan by using TBD for non-key positions without identified personnel.

The protester also challenges the agency's second rationale for assessing a significant weakness to Solvere's personnel approach--i.e., that “[c]ontractor personnel supporting IA functions . . . shall obtain the appropriate DoD‑approved IA baseline certification prior to being engaged.” AR Encl. 2, Tech. Eval. Rpt. at 6. According to the evaluators, the RFP's reference to DoD 8579.01-M required offerors to propose personnel that have already obtained “DoD approved IA baseline certification” prior to onboarding. The protester contends this is contrary to the solicitation, which allowed “for a 6-month period for meeting certification specifications.” Protest at 11. The Navy acknowledges that the “Protester is correct about the 6-month window to obtain certifications,” but argues that the provision “is permissive and does not compel the Navy to disregard the immediate performance risk of a proposal that leaves a substantial portion of its workforce uncertified or unknown at the time of award.” MOL at 8. In the Navy's view, “[t]his provision merely permits extra time for onboarding certifications; it does not guarantee that proposals devoid of qualified staff at the time of award or contract start would be overlooked in the Navy's risk assessment of its staffing proposal.” Id.

Here again we find the agency's position is not supported by the RFP. We find it was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria for the evaluators to assess a significant weakness in Solvere's proposal for personnel not having necessary certifications prior to onboarding. The agency's evaluation creates another irrational result whereby the protester was penalized for proposing a solution that complied with the solicitation's express minimum requirement that “training and certification specifications are required to be met within 6 months for any currently contracted employee and must be met within 6 months of any newly reporting personnel being assigned.” RFP at 38.

While the evaluators' concern that not having all personnel certified prior to onboarding may be understandable in a high-security IT environment such as the one at issue here, pre‑onboard certification is not what the solicitation required. If the agency had wanted to require proposals to include only personnel who already had or could obtain necessary certifications prior to the start of contract performance, the Navy should have stated so in the solicitation, but it did not. Similarly, if the agency intended to assess a higher level of risk in and downgrade an offeror's proposal for relying on the solicitation's 6‑month period for meeting certification specifications, the Navy was obliged to state such in the evaluation criteria, but it did not. We find the agency's evaluation here to be clearly inconsistent with the plain language of the solicitation.

In sum, we find the agency's interpretation of the solicitation here unreasonable for the reasons discussed, and we conclude the Navy applied unstated evaluation criteria in assessing a significant weakness in Solvere's proposal for including too many TBD positions in its staffing plan and relatedly for the personnel in those TBD positions potentially not having necessary certifications prior to onboarding. As discussed below, because we find the protester was competitively prejudiced by the agency's technical evaluation, we sustain the protest on this basis.

Cost Factor

As noted above, the solicitation provided for award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee level-of-effort task order. RFP at 92. To that end, the RFP advised the agency would (1) perform a cost realism analysis, (2) upwardly adjust any costs deemed to be unrealistically low, and (3) base the best value determination on total evaluated, rather than total proposed, costs. Id. at 114. Additionally, the solicitation established the agency “may also assign risk, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to proposals that contain unrealistically low costs, unsupported costs, and/or costs inconsistent with the technical volume.” Id.

The record here reflects that the cost evaluation team (CET) did not consider any of Solvere's proposed costs unrealistically low or unsupported and, therefore, did not make any upward adjustments to Solvere's proposed costs. AR Encl. 6, Solvere Cost Eval. Rpt. at 3. With regards to direct labor costs, the evaluators noted that all of Solvere's proposed rates, including rates for TBD positions, were in line with industry standard and realistic. Id. at 9-10. Notwithstanding having found Solvere's proposed direct labor rates realistic, the evaluators noted “a significant risk associated with the high percentage of TBD Personnel.” Id. at 10. Specifically, the CET stated: “With the vast majority of the offeror's proposed workforce as unnamed, the government is concerned that the offeror will not have the necessary resources in place for the project to have a timely ramp‑up.”[7] Id.

Solvere takes issue with the cost evaluators' assessment of this risk. When an agency evaluates proposals for award of a cost-reimbursement task order it must perform a cost realism analysis to determine the extent to which an offeror's proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed. FAR 15.305(a)(1), 15.404‑1(d). Tridentis, LLC, B-410202.2, B-410202.3, Feb. 24, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 99 at 7. An agency's realism analysis need not achieve scientific certainty, however, but must provide a reasonable measure of confidence that the costs proposed are realistic based on information reasonably available to the agency at the time of its evaluation. ORBIS Sibro, Inc., B‑421626.5 et al., Dec. 12, 2023, 2024 CPD ¶ 5 at 8. An agency is not required to conduct an in-depth cost analysis, or to verify each and every item in assessing cost realism. FAR 15.404-1(d)(1); Systems & Proposal Eng'g Co., B‑421494, June 7, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 138 at 7. Rather, the evaluation requires the exercise of informed judgment by the contracting agency, and agencies are given broad discretion to make cost realism evaluations. CACI, Inc.--Fed., supra at 7. Consequently, our review of an agency's cost realism evaluation is limited to determining whether the cost analysis is reasonably based and not arbitrary. Id.

The protester argues the CET's “statement goes far beyond” the cost evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation, as the risk noted by the cost evaluators was not assessed for any of the reasons provided for in the solicitation--i.e., unrealistically low costs, unsupported costs, or costs inconsistent with the technical volume. Protest at 14. The agency maintains the protester's argument “overlooks the fact that cost and technical are inherently connected,” and that “[w]hile the Navy's cost realism analysis accepted Protester's proposed labor rates for its TBD employees, that finding does not address whether those rates can be operationalized into a fully qualified team that meets the staffing and performance demands of the technical approach.” MOL at 11. In this regard, the agency asserts:

Particularly in a service-type contract where the contract value is predominantly comprised of labor hours, the Navy's duty to evaluate whether Protester can actually provide the proposed labor force, conforming both in number and qualifications with the requirements in the Solicitation, is foundational to assessing cost realism. Any offeror leaving [DELETED] of labor positions unidentified directly impacts an evaluator's ability to assess whether the proposed cost is realistic for successful contract performance.

MOL at 11-12.

In reviewing an agency's procurement actions, we do not limit our consideration to contemporaneously documented evidence, but instead consider all the information provided, including the parties' arguments, explanations, and any hearing testimony. AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-414244, B-414244.2, Apr. 3, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 111 at 4 n.3. Our Office will accord lesser weight to post hoc arguments or analyses because judgments made “in the heat of an adversarial process” may not represent the fair and considered judgment of the agency, which is a prerequisite of a rational evaluation and source selection process. Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B‑277263.2, B-277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 91 at 15. While we accord greater weight to contemporaneous materials as opposed to judgments made in response to protest contentions, post-protest explanations that provide a detailed rationale for contemporaneous conclusions, and simply fill in previously unrecorded details, will generally be considered in our review of the rationality of selection decisions--so long as those explanations are credible and consistent with the contemporaneous record. NWT, Inc.; PharmChem Labs., Inc., B‑280988, B-280988.2, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 158 at 16.

Here, the agency's assertion--that Solvere's proposal of a high percentage of TBD personnel “directly impact[ed the] evaluator's ability to assess whether the proposed cost [was] realistic”--is not borne out by the contemporaneous record. MOL at 11-12. Instead, the record reflects the evaluators were readily able to assess the realism of Solvere's direct labor rates, and the CET found the proposed rates for all personnel, including TBD personnel, to be “in line with the industry standard and realistic.” AR Encl. 6, Solvere Cost Eval. Rpt. at 9-10. Accordingly, we find the Navy's proffered justification for assessment of a cost risk--i.e., the high percentage of TBD personnel purportedly impacting the evaluation of cost realism--to be a post-hoc rationalization, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation and therefore deserving of little weight. See e.g., Conti Fed. Servs., LLC, B-422162 et al., Feb. 1, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 31 at 6-7 (finding agency explanation for upward cost adjustment was a post-hoc rationalization crafted in the heat of litigation with no support in the contemporaneous record).

Rather than being assessed because of any impact on the CET's ability to assess cost realism, in the agency's own words, the challenged risk was assessed because the Navy was concerned about whether Solvere's TBD-heavy personnel approach could be “operationalized into a fully qualified team that meets the staffing and performance demands of the technical approach.” MOL at 11. Such concern, however, is neither tied to nor encompassed by the solicitation's cost evaluation factor, which provided only that the agency might assign cost risks “to proposals that contain unrealistically low costs, unsupported costs, and/or costs inconsistent with the technical volume.” RFP at 114. Rather the record here documents that the CET found Solvere's proposed costs to be both realistic and supported, and that the evaluators did not express concern about any disconnect or inconsistency between Solvere's technical and cost proposals, both of which included the same purportedly problematic percentage of TBD personnel.

Further, as noted above, the solicitation expressly permitted offerors to propose TBD personnel and did not indicate that evaluation of any cost or non-cost factors would encompass consideration of the number of TBD personnel proposed. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we find the CET's assessment of a cost risk in Solvere's proposal inconsistent with the solicitation's stated cost evaluation factor. See e.g., Valkyrie Enters., LLC, B-415633.3, July 11, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 255 at 8-9 (sustaining protest where agency's evaluation was inconsistent with solicitation's cost realism methodology).

Best-Value Tradeoff and Competitive Prejudice

In addition to challenging the evaluation of Solvere's proposal, the protester contends “[t]he numerous evaluation errors” it identified “render the selection decision defective.” Protest at 14. While the agency maintains the source selection decision was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation, the Navy also contends that even if the protester's allegations are sustained, Solvere “has no realistic chance of receiving the award.” MOL at 17, 19.

Relevant here, the record reflects the SSA considered the 3 strengths assessed in Solvere's proposal as compared to the 10 strengths assessed in EHS's proposal under the technical factor. AR Encl. 7, SSD at 14-15. The SSA also noted that EHS's proposal was assessed a weakness while Solvere's was assessed a significant weakness. Id. at 15. As a result of this comparison, the SSA “determined that EHS had a discernable technical advantage over Solvere” for the technical factor, “in part due to the significant weakness identified” in Solvere's proposal. Id. In this regard, the SSA noted the risk the CET assessed in Solvere's proposal related to the high percentage of TBD personnel offered. Id. at 20. The SSA concluded that while Solvere's proposal had “an obvious advantage” under the cost factor, it did “not represent a better value than EHS'[s] proposal.” Id. at 24. Specifically, the SSA found:

Unlike Solvere, whose proposal left [DELETED] [percent] of its personnel unspecified, EHS proposed a better identified, highly qualified team. This greatly minimizes the risk of unsuccessful performance, ensuring immediate readiness and continuity in project execution, rather than requiring extensive recruitment and onboarding efforts post-award. Moreover, the uncertainty associated with Solvere's TBD personnel creates significant risk regarding qualifications, security clearances and overall team cohesion. Any delays in staffing could result in missed milestones and operational disruptions. In contrast, EHS has a vetted experienced team that is prepared to begin work immediately, reducing transition time and ensuring uninterrupted service. Amongst other things, given the significant personnel-related risks associated with Solvere and the clear technical and past performance advantages offered by EHS, the additional cost is justified.

Id.

For the reasons discussed above, we find the significant weakness assessed in Solvere's personnel approach and the related cost risk assessed in Solvere's proposal--both of which the SSA relied upon as discriminators between the protester's and awardee's proposals--are inconsistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Additionally, as explained above, the record reflects Solvere proposed only [DELETED] percent TBD personnel, not [DELETED] percent as stated by the SSA, when calculated as a percentage of total personnel rather than as a percentage of only prime contractor personnel.

Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest, and we will only sustain a protest where the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. Battelle Mem'l Inst., B‑418047.3, B-418047.4, May 18, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 176 at 8. Here, the Navy's best‑value decision was based, in part, on the significant weakness and cost risk that were unreasonably assessed in Solvere's proposal. Further, while it may be appropriate for the SSA to consider the difference in number of TBD personnel proposed between offerors as part of the comparative tradeoff assessment--even if no risks or weaknesses are assigned to the proposals related to the use of TBD staffing--any such consideration must be based on an accurate comparison of the percentages of TBD staff proposed by each offeror, which was not the case here. See e.g., Morgan Bus. Consulting, LLC, B‑421509, June 12, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 140 at 13 (denying challenge to best-value tradeoff in a Seaport NxG task order competition where evaluators did not assess protester a weakness for proposing TBD personnel, but, as part of tradeoff, SSA considered lower number of TBD personnel proposed by awardee to be an approach with less risk compared to protester's approach).

On the record before us, we cannot say what impact removing the unreasonably assessed significant weakness and cost risk from Solvere's lower-cost proposal, combined with accurately comparing Solvere's [DELETED] percent TBD personnel figure to EHS's [DELETED] percent TBD personnel figure would have had on the SSA's tradeoff decision.[8] It is possible the removal of the significant weakness combined with the closer TBD personnel percentages and Solvere's approximately 15 percent lower cost would have been sufficient to tilt the award decision in the protester's favor; it also is possible it might not have been sufficient. In such circumstances, we resolve any doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester because even a reasonable possibility of prejudice forms a sufficient basis to sustain a protest. Tech Marine Bus., Inc., B-420872 et al., Oct. 14, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 260 at 9 n. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the protest. See e.g., Sayres & Assocs. Corp., supra at 8 (sustaining protest where agency's cost/technical tradeoff was premised in part on unreasonable assignment of a significant weakness and a second weakness inconsistent with the solicitation, and correction of these errors may have impacted the tradeoff).

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend the agency reevaluate Solvere's proposal under the personnel approach element of the technical factor and under the cost factor consistent with the solicitation and the above discussion. Following the reevaluation, the agency should make a new source selection decision. Alternatively, in light of the evaluators' expressed concerns with Solvere's purported overuse of TBD personnel, the Navy may wish to amend the solicitation to better reflect its requirements and evaluation preferences. If the Navy chooses to amend the solicitation, it should then permit offerors to submit revised proposals, evaluate those proposals, and make a new source selection decision.

Further, we recommend that the protester be reimbursed the cost of filing and pursuing this protest, including reasonable attorney's fees. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1). Solvere should submit its certified claim for costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly to the agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

---