GAO: Army failed to adequately explain contract award

The Government Accountability Office earlier this month sustained a bid protest of a fingerprint identification contract because the Army failed to understand part of a proposal and did not adequately explain the losing company's weaknesses.

Cogent Systems Inc., an identification system provider based in South Pasadena, Calif., protested the contract, which involves supplying a fingerprint ID system for use by the Iraqi government and is worth more than $10 million. Motorola Inc., of Schaumburg, Ill., won the work in February. Fingerprint identification is used in law enforcement, border security and voting.

The Army gave weak ratings to Cogent's proposal in part because of a description of a flatbed scanner, a piece of equipment that reads fingerprints. According to GAO, the Army misinterpreted the description and failed to understand what type of scanner Cogent planned to use.

After the Army selected Motorola, the armed service told Cogent that its "design still has several weaknesses that are considered significant enough to result in a less than acceptable rating." Cogent protested, arguing the Army's explanation was not meaningful.

In its protest, Cogent said, "The Army's alleged weaknesses are based on purported ambiguities or disconnects in the manner in which Cogent proposed to exceed the minimum requirements."

GAO agreed. The auditors stated that the Army "erroneously believed that the scanner offered by Cogent in its final revised proposal was the same as the one offered by Cogent initially," when in fact it had changed. GAO also said that the Army did not give Cogent enough feedback on its proposal, which violates the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

The FAR requires contracting officers to discuss weaknesses in bidders' proposals in order to give them a chance to respond. "However, the contracting officer is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved," the regulation states. "The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of contracting office judgment."

The Army told GAO that Cogent would not have won the contract regardless, but GAO disagreed, saying there was a chance that Cogent would have prevailed. GAO only sustains protests if the protester would have had a reasonable chance of winning, if not for the alleged mistake in the award process.

Because Motorola already has delivered equipment for the first phase of the contract, GAO did not recommend a fresh competition. Instead, it suggested that the Army reimburse Cogent for its proposal and protest costs.

But Cogent argued that the Army could still save money by using its equipment in place of Motorola's, or by allowing it to perform the updates on Motorola's software. GAO recommended against that.

Norman Sandler, director of global strategic issues for Motorola, said the equipment already has been shipped and that it will be up to Cogent and the Army to work out how they'll handle GAO's decision and recommendations.