Navy Picks Linchpin
Both ACLC and Linchpin earned high marks in nonprice factors, but Linchpin won with its slightly lower cost and performance strategy.
Linchpin submitted three past performance references, including one subcontract worth far less in value. Despite that, Navy evaluators deemed it “reasonably relevant,” citing its similar design and delivery of training services. Two additional references, tied to Linchpin’s proposed subcontractor, were scored as “very relevant” and “somewhat relevant.”
The GAO said it saw no problem with the Navy’s decision to evaluate the references collectively, granting Linchpin a “substantial confidence” rating nearly equal to ACLC’s.
Navy’s Discretion and Personal Knowledge
GAO emphasized that agencies retain wide latitude in assessing contract performance. The Navy also factored in its contracting officer’s personal knowledge of both companies’ track records.
“We regard it as a matter committed to the Navy’s evaluation discretion,” the GAO wrote, “to weigh the quality of performance of each contract as a whole, even when the firm was a subcontractor. Importantly, the reported performance was wholly positive.”
