Source: http://govtcontractsmonitor.jacksonkelly.com/bid-protests/page/2/
Timestamp: 2018-10-17 22:07:03
Document Index: 494279733

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 21', 'art 15', '§ 6', 'art 8', '§ 6', '§ 2302', '§ 6', '§ 152', 'art 15']

Government Contracts Monitor: Bid Protests
Provide What The Government Wants, Not What Makes Sense to You
When preparing proposals and responding to discussion questions, offerors sometimes unconsciously respond to solicitation requirements and agency comments from a normative perspective, providing the information they believe “makes sense” rather than the information the agency has actually requested. It seems that this dynamic may have contributed to the circumstances considered by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the recent decision in Calibre Systems, Inc., B-414301.3 (September 20, 2017). In any event, the matter underscores the vital importance of focusing on what the agency wants rather than what you believe it needs.
The protest involved the award of a contract to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for support services to continue administration and program management for the VA’s Transition Assistance Program (TAP). Under the solicitation, the award was to be based on the following five factors in descending order of importance: technical capability, project management plan, past performance, small business subcontracting plan, and price.
In connection with the project management plan factor, the RFP required offerors to provide a draft project management plan that addressed the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the PWS. More specifically, it sought detailed plans for staffing, in-processing, training, operational deployment, contractor communications, risk assessment and mitigation, quality control, and transition. The solicitation also explained that a proposed “transition plan shall address in detail how the Contractor proposes to transition the tasks during the first 90 days of performance and accomplish the PWS tasks during the transition period.” Offerors were to be evaluated based on the extent to which a proposal demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements and the risk and likelihood of success of the proposal’s project management plan approach.
The agency’s evaluation found that the incumbent contractor, Calibre, had proposed a lower price but assigned its proposal a “Satisfactory” rating for technical capability and a “Marginal” rating for its project management plan. The latter rating was based on an assessment of six strengths, three significant weaknesses and five weaknesses. In response to the award, Calibre challenged the award decision and the agency’s evaluation of its proposal. Among its attacks on the Marginal rating, Calibre argued that each of the weaknesses and significant weaknesses were unreasonable because it failed to accurately reflect Calibre’s final proposal revision (FPR), relied on unstated evaluation criteria, or resulted from misleading discussions.
The GAO decision focuses on Calibre’s challenge to one particular significant weakness as representative of its protest allegations. During discussions, the VA had raised the concern that it had only a moderate level of confidence in the transition approach due to Calibre’s failure to address how its proposed new and revised approaches would be addressed during the transition as noted throughout the project management plan. In response, Calibre simply revised its proposal to note that a detailed transition plan would be provided after award of the contract. During evaluation, the agency found that the protester had not addressed the VA’s concerns. In addition, the evaluators concluded that the proposal offered an accelerated transition period without explaining how the PWS tasks would be accomplished, and that this presented significant risk, which was assessed a significant weakness.
Calibre argued that this significant weakness was improper, claiming that it was based on an unstated evaluation criterion since the RFP did not require offerors to provide a detailed transition schedule or a plan to perform new and revised tasks. According to Calibre, the RFP included the transition plan among the contract deliverables due 14 days after the effective date of contract award, so that offerors had no reasonable expectation that a detailed transition plan was required in their proposals. Calibre also claimed that the VA ignored the fact that, as the incumbent, Calibre could propose inherent efficiencies, and therefore, include fewer transition activities in its plan.
The VA responded that, despite Calibre’s assertions to the contrary, the RFP specifically required a detailed draft transition plan. It went on to explain that the significant weakness was reasonably assessed because Calibre’s proposal failed to provide the required transition plan.
The GAO agreed with the agency that the solicitation required a detailed draft transition plan and noted that, “Where a firm provides only a blanket statement to indicate that it will meet a particular requirement, thereby discussing only the end results, but providing little or no detail about how it plans to meet or exceed the requirement, the agency may reasonably downgrade the proposal.” As the decision explains, an agency’s evaluation is ultimately dependent upon the information furnished in a proposal, and the offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate.
According to the GAO, the fact that the RFP also noted that a final transition plan would be a deliverable during the performance of the contract did not negate the instruction given to potential offerors. Nor did it affect the agency’s ability to evaluate the proposal on the basis of the explicit requirement that the proposal include a detailed plan. None of Calibre’s other protest arguments fared any better and the GAO denied the protest. At the end of the day, the GAO found all of Calibre’s arguments to essentially reflect disagreements with the agency’s evaluation, which do not provide a valid basis to sustain a protest.
If you want to avoid such disagreements concerning the agency’s evaluation of your proposal, make sure the proposal provides precisely what the solicitation requires, even if from your perspective the requirements make no sense or seek irrelevant information. In the absence of some sort of impropriety, it’s always better to give the agency what it wants than to second guess its request.
Posted on 10/20/2017 in Bid Protests, Bids and Proposals, Evaluation and Award, GAO Decisions, Solicitations / Proposal Preparation | Permalink
If You’re Thinking about Protesting, Don’t Forget to Consider the “Warts” on Your Own Proposal
Upon learning of a contract award to a competitor, offerors often immediately latch onto the idea of protesting what they are sure must be a flawed decision. After all, how could it be reasonable and consistent with law and the solicitation for the agency to have chosen the awardee over the disappointed bidder? Firms that find themselves in this situation need to find a way to quickly get past their initial disappointment and conduct an objective, unemotional assessment of the likelihood of success based on the relevant facts and law. The decision in the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) matter of SSI Technology, Inc., B-414204.3 (September 12, 2017) reminds us that such an analysis must consider the putative protester’s proposal as well as what it knows about that of the awardee.
SSI Technology involved a challenge to a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) award of a purchase order for liquid fuel water separators to Phoenix Trading, Inc. (PTI). Source selection was to be based on an evaluation of price, delivery, and past performance, with the potential for an evaluation preference for quotes/offers of fewer delivery days than the number requested by the Government. SSI quoted a unit price of $305 with delivery within 180 days. PTI’s quote offered a higher unit price ($409) and a significantly longer delivery time (350 days).
After two earlier protests that resulted in corrective action by the agency and another award to PTI, SSI Technology, Inc. (SSI) protested again, arguing in part that the agency’s best value trade-off was flawed. More particularly, SSI claimed that DLA’s best value determination was unreasonable because (i) PTI’s proposed price was 34% more than that of SSI; and (ii) PTI proposed and was awarded a delivery date that was 145 days after the delivery date required by the Government. How, SSI essentially asked, could paying more for slower delivery constitute best value to the Government?
The Agency’s answer was damning--and based in large part on SSI’s own proposal. While it recognized that SSI quoted a lower price and shorter delivery period than PTI, DLA voiced serious concerns about whether SSI could actually meet the delivery times it proposed. This concern was based on SSI’s “very poor past performance history,” which included a Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) score of 0 and a record of delivering only 23.8% of its DLA-awarded CLINs by their dues dates in the past year. In contrast, PTI ’s past performance history showed a high degree of timely performance that gave the agency “full confidence” that PTI would “perform in accordance with its quoted delivery time.” In the end, DLA decided it was worth paying more to PTI in order to avoid the risk of untimely deliveries.
The GAO sided with the agency. It first reiterated the broad discretion afforded source selection officials regarding the manner and extent to which they will make use of technical and cost evaluation results--subject only to the tests of rationality and consistency with the evaluation criteria. The GAO then upheld DLA’s best value determination, finding “[t]he protester has not shown that this determination was unreasonable or inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.”
SSI’s inability to make that showing rested in large part on the problems with its own proposal. If it had better past performance, the agency may not have been able to justify paying the price differential required by PTI’s proposal. Indeed, it may have awarded to SSI to begin with.
SSI’s experience here highlights the need to base any decision to protest on a frank appraisal of your own proposal--both the good and the bad--and what its strengths and weaknesses say about your realistic chances of ultimately winning. Even if you’re able to win some early battles, as SSI did, focusing solely on the perceived flaws of the awardee’s offer may result in a significant expenditure of time, treasure, and effort with nothing to show for it. Of course, imperfect knowledge about the awardee’s proposal means taking both sides into account will not guaranty your protest decision will be correct. But ignoring what you do know about your own proposal is almost never a good idea.
Posted on 09/22/2017 in Bid Protests, GAO Decisions | Permalink
Regardless of Whether You’re Responsible, Did You “Deliver the Mail”?
Sometimes small business offeror’s lack of success in a competitive procurement results from questions about whether it is “responsible” (i.e. has the ability to perform). When a small business’ proposal is found unacceptable due to a responsibility-related issue, the procuring agency must refer the matter to the Small Business Administration (SBA), which has the ultimate authority to determine the responsibility of small business concerns. But, as the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision in Sea Box, Inc., B-414742 (September 6, 2017) makes clear, this rule does not amount to a free pass. In order to have the SBA consider the responsibility issue, an offeror must otherwise comply with the solicitation requirements.
The matter involved a small business challenge to a contract award by the General Services Administration (GSA) for relocatable simulator shelters (RSS) for the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Simulators Program Office and Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) to house training devices. As relevant here, the request for proposals (RFP) provided that failure on any single pass/fail criteria would render a proposal ineligible for award, with no further evaluation performed by the government. It also identified two pass/fail criteria, one of which required proposals to include a statement confirming that the proposed RSS solution had been rated to operate at a secret classification level in accordance with solicitation requirements. The RFP went on to provide that, in order to show that they met this criterion, offerors must submit “documentation that demonstrates in writing how its solution complies with DOD Manual 5200.01 “Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information,” and DOD Instruction 8500.01 “Cybersecurity” and documentation that shows its product has been previously certified/accredited by a government security agency such as the Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency or Defense Security Service to a minimum level of SECRET, Open Storage.
Upon reviewing Sea Box’s proposal, the GSA determined that it had failed to meet the secret classification pass/fail criteria because it did not submit a statement that confirmed the RSS solution provided had been rated to operate at the required secret classification level. After being notified of the contract award to another offeror and receiving a debriefing, Sea Box protested, arguing in part that because the agency eliminated its proposal from the competition based on responsibility-related criteria, its unacceptable proposal should have been referred to the SBA. More particularly, Sea Box contended that its alleged failure to submit the required documentation relates to Sea Box’s responsibility. In response the agency argued that the rejection of Sea Box’s proposal was not based on Sea Box’s responsibility, but was instead based on whether Sea Box’s product met the salient characteristics in the RFP. The GAO agreed with the agency.
As an initial matter, the GAO noted there was no question that Sea Box failed to provide the required documentation. Given that, the GAO made short work of the protester’s contention that the agency was required to refer the unacceptable proposal to the SBA. As the GAO went on to explain, notwithstanding the requirement to refer to the SBA any small business proposal found to be unacceptable under a responsibility-related factor, such referral is not required when an agency rejects a proposal as technically unacceptable on the basis of factors not related to responsibility. Nor is referral to the SBA required where the finding of unacceptability is based on the offeror’s failure to submit specific documentation required by the solicitation, even if the factor on which technical unacceptability is based arguably relates to the offeor’s responsibility. In this case, the GAO found both (i) that the documentation requirement was not responsibility related, since it did not pertain to the offeror’s ability to perform; and (ii) that the protester’s proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable because it lacked provide required documentation. Either way, referral to the SBA was not required.
This decision provides a stark reminder of the importance of strict compliance with solicitation requirements, which operate as a sort of gateway to the competition: if you don’t meet the requirements, you may not go any further in the procurement. This is particularly true of pass/fail criteria. But in either case, lack of compliance can rob an offeror of the opportunity to benefit from other procurement rules. If you want to be in the competitive mix and have a real chance at contract award, you must first make sure to “deliver the mail” by doing all the solicitation requires.
Posted on 09/08/2017 in Bid Protests, Bids and Proposals, Contracting Rules and Regulations, Evaluation and Award, GAO Decisions, Small Business / Socioeconomic Issues, Solicitations / Proposal Preparation | Permalink
Overcome by Events: Facts Not Directly Related to Protest Grounds Can Prevent an Ultimate Protest Victory
In the compliance context, contractors often have to try to do the impossible: think about everything all the time. A similar ideal applies in the protest context. When considering whether and how to pursue a protest, it's important to think about more than just whether you can win the short-term battle on the substantive legal issues. Contractors also need to consider whether there are other, real world factors that bear on their ultimate likelihood of success in the overall war. As many protesters have learned to their chagrin, forcing an agency to take corrective action is no guarantee of winning the contract award in the end--and even fully-briefed protest grounds are not always considered, much less decided. The recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision in Bluehorse Corporation, B-414643 (August 11, 2017) serves as a reminder of the significant impact that extraneous factors can have--and why it’s important to maintain comprehensive situational awareness throughout any protest.
The matter involved a challenge by Bluehorse Corporation to the Air Force’s proposed corrective action in response to an earlier Bluehorse protest. In the prior protest, Bluehorse had challenged the terms of the pre-solicitation notice issued by the Air Force for Taser X26P conducted electrical weapons (CEW) and related accessories. The notice had stated that the Air Force was proceeding under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements. It also noted that the Taser X26P is the only currently approved CEW for use by Air Force personnel.
Bluehorse had protested the original pre-solicitation notice as unduly restrictive of competition, alleged that the agency failed to conduct a proper market research, and claimed it should have been afforded the opportunity to become an approved Air Force source for CEWs. Prior to the due date for the agency report, the Air Force asked the GAO to dismiss the protest as academic because it had decided to cancel the procurement and reassess its acquisition strategy and brand-name justification. The agency explained that the contracting officer had reviewed the pre-solicitation notice and market research in response to the protest and concluded that some items the agency initially intended to purchase on a sole-source basis might be procured using other methods. For this reason, the Air Force decided to reevaluate which items, if any, could appropriately be acquired on a sole-source basis.
In response, the GAO dismissed the protest.
Bluehorse's response to the agency's request for dismissal, however, had included objections to the cancellation decision. The GAO addressed these as a separate matter in the later protest. Bluehorse essentially argued that the Air Force’s action was pre-textual and failed to resolve the alleged improprieties in its procurement for Taser brand products. It also reiterated its prior contention that it should be given an opportunity to offer its PhaZZer CEW product in future competitions.
Bluehorse never got the chance to have those issues decided by the GAO.
Instead, after the agency report, comments, responses to inquiries from the GAO, and comments on those responses were filed, the Air Force filed a request for dismissal, asserting that Bluehorse was no longer an interested party. According to the agency, Bluehorse had lost interested party status as the result of a recent permanent injunction issued by the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division that enjoined PhaZZer and “any other persons who are in active concert or participation with Phazzer or its officers” from offering for sale or selling the PhaZZer Enforcer CEW and cartidges. Thus, the Air Force argued, Bluehorse is prohibited from offering the PhaZZer Enforcer CEWs and Taser-compatible cartridges and, because it offers no other product similar to the Taser X26P, no longer has any economic interest in how the agency purchases Taser products--or standing to protest the propriety of the agency’s corrective action in this case. Simply put, Bluehorse would have no chance of receiving the award for the CEW products sought even if its protest were sustained.
After noting that only an interested party--an actual or prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract--may protest federal procurement, the GAO noted that Bluehorse did not deny that it is incapable of providing any CEWs or cartridges. Rather, Bluehorse argued that it should be allowed to sell Taser-compatible PhaZZer holsters because those accessories were not subject to the District Court’s injunction.
In response, the Air Force pointed out that the underlying procurement sought to procure both Taser X26P CEWs and related accessories and argued that Bluehorse’s in ability to provide both means it is not an interested party. The agency also contended that, because Bluehorse now lacks standing to challenge the underlying procurement, it is also without standing to challenge the agency’s decision to cancel that procurement.
The GAO agreed, noting that while the protester might have the requisite legal interest in a future procurement for holsters, the acquisition here aimed to procure CEWs and accessories together, and did not provide for separate awards. For this reason, the GAO held that Bluehorse’s ability to furnish holsters alone does not render it an interested party to challenge the agency’s cancellation decision and denied the protest on that ground.
Obviously, this was not a case in which the protester was blindsided by an unexpected occurrence. Bluehorse certainly knew about the ongoing litigation in District Court and recognized the potential adverse impact an injunction in that matter might have on its protest. But the case does amply illustrate how the outcome of a protest can easily be driven--and driven off the rails--by even known facts not directly related to the asserted protest grounds. An unhealthy fixation on “protest facts” to the exclusion of all else can be very harmful to your chances for a protest win. Instead, do your best to take into account all the facts even tangentially related to your protest.
Posted on 08/18/2017 in Bid Protests, GAO Decisions | Permalink
Surprise: An Agency Can Base Its Specs on Your Competitor’s Product as Long as the Specs Accurately Reflect the Agency’s Needs
Given the oft-repeated mantra of “full and open competition”, contractors are understandably alarmed when a procuring agency defines its requirements in a way that essentially tracks another company’s product offerings. The recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision in Simplex Aerospace, B-414566.2, (August 8, 2017) reminds us that “full and open competition” does not guarantee a completely level playing field in every situation.
The procurement at issue involved an Air Force solicitation seeking a contractor to design, engineer, develop, manufacture, and install a 3,500 gallon retardant delivery system (RDS) in seven demilitarized Air Force HC-130H aircraft to be used by the U.S. Forest Service. When Simplex Aerospace reviewed the request for proposals (RFP), its personnel detected what they believed to be an improperly close correlation between the RFP specifications and a system designed by Coulson Aviation (USA), Inc., which had previously held a contract for the same requirement that had been terminated for convenience by the Government.
Believing that the Air Force had simply parroted certain of Coulson’s design features in the subject RFP, Simplex timely filed a protest challenging the RFP requirements, arguing, among other things, that the solicitation contains terms that are overly prescriptive and unduly restrictive of competition. More particularly, Simplex contended that the agency’s requirements are improperly patterned after the design of the existing Coulson product.
The GAO disagreed.
In its decision, the GAO first notes that the assertions that the agency favored Coulson’s design, by themselves, do not give rise to a basis to sustain the protest. It then reiterated what it has explained before: “in seeking full and open competition, an agency is not required to construct procurements in a manner that neutralizes the competitive advantages of some potential offerors.” Indeed, “[a] protest that a specification was “written around” design features of a competitor’s product fails to provide a valid basis for protest if the record establishes that the specification is reasonably related to the agency’s needs.
Thus, when a protest contends that the agency’s requirements unduly restrict competition, the procuring agency has the responsibility of establishing that the specification or requirement is reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs. But, as the GAO also noted, contracting agencies have the discretion to determine their needs and the best methods to accommodate them. The GAO’s job in this context is simply to examine the adequacy of the agency’s justification. So long as that justification is rational and can withstand logical scrutiny, the allegedly restrictive provision will stand, even if it essentially tracks a competitor’s design.
Here, the GAO found that the agency had provided a detailed rationale for the requirements challenged by the protester and that the record provides no basis to conclude that the specifications do not reflect the needs of the agency. Under these circumstances, Simplex’s protest was dismissed.
Remember, just because an agency’s requirements appear to have been modeled after a competitor’s product, a successful protest is not a sure thing. The agency will have an opportunity to justify its use of those requirements as being reasonably necessary to meet its needs. Protesters pursuing this type of challenge must be ready to demonstrate that the agency’s explanation does not hold water. Otherwise, you will end up in the same place as Simplex: stuck with RFP requirements that stack the deck against you.
Posted on 08/11/2017 in Bid Protests, GAO Decisions, Solicitations / Proposal Preparation | Permalink
Protesting Too Early Can Be as Bad as Protesting Too Late
When the Government Accountability Office (GAO) dismisses a protest due to timing issues, the problem almost always involves protests submitted after the protest period ends. But late filing protesters are not the only ones who suffer timing-based dismissals. As the recent decision in 2M Research Services, LLC, B-413993.4 (June 19, 2017) makes clear, filing too early--before the protest period begins--can lead to the same outcome as filing too late.
The protest involved a challenge by 2M Research Services, LLC (2M) to a decision made by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during corrective action in response an earlier protest by 2M. That earlier protest had focused on the agency’s evaluation and award decision and resulted in FEMA’s deciding to: (i) reevaluate past performance; (ii) review compliance with the limitations on subcontracting clause; (iii) decide whether to award with or without discussions and conduct price evaluations as necessary; and (iv) issue a new technical source selection evaluation board consensus report and a new source selection decision document. After the GAO rejected 2M’s challenge to the proposed corrective action and dismissed the protest, the agency implemented the proposed reevaluation. Along the way, it decided to conduct discussions with all offerors in the competitive range, including 2M.
After FEMA posed written discussion questions to 2M and 2M responded, the agency asked 2M for a final proposal revision (FPR). The day before 2M submitted its FPR, however, it filed this protest contending that FEMA improperly included the proposal of Vision Planning & Consulting, LLC (VPC) in the competitive range. More particularly, 2M argued that VPC’s proposal contains material deficiencies--relating to staffing, key personnel, and past performance--that cannot be corrected as a result of discussions. Relying on the same reasons on which it based its previous protest, 2M alleged that the agency could not reasonably conclude that VPC’s proposal should be included in the competitive range.
2M claims that it learned of VPC’s inclusion on May 10, 2017, seven days before its protest was filed. Apparently based on that timeline, 2M believed that it met the protest timing requirements.
The GAO disagreed, but not because 2M had filed too late.
It found “no basis to review 2M’s allegations at this time”, explaining that while the GAO has considered protest grounds like those articulated by 2M, the issue was not addressed in those cases until after the agency actually made an award decision. Further, and perhaps more importantly, when the agency has yet to make an award decision, allegations that a competitor should not have been included in the competitive range are premature. As the GAO pointed out, the agency could ultimately decide to award the contract to the protester. If the protester does not win the award, however, it can then raise whatever evaluation errors it deems appropriate.
Obviously, being dismissed for filing too early is not the same as being dismissed for filing too late, if only because the protester will either get “another bite at the apple” or not need one because it won the award. But contractors should still be mindful of the costs, in terms of time, effort, and its relationship with the procuring agency, of protesting something that has not yet adversely impacted the outcome of the procurement. It’s much better to be patient and only file your protest when you can challenge alleged errors that have actually prejudiced you.
Posted on 07/20/2017 in Bid Protests, GAO Decisions | Permalink
Not All Debriefings Are Created Equal
Faced with a short time in which to prepare a protest, contractors sometimes rely too heavily on the notion that the protest clock doesn’t start running until a debriefing is held. Unfortunately, only certain debriefings have that effect. Other types of debriefings, while they may provide useful insight into the procurement process or how to improve future offers, do not extend the timeline for filing. For example, as the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision in Global Aerospace Corporation, B-414514 (July 3, 2017) makes clear, debriefings conducted in connection with an SBIR procurement do not provide a potential protester extra time to prepare.
The matter involved a challenge to an SBIR Phase II award by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) related to a solicitation seeking proposals for various potential research/research and development topics. The award in question, which focused on vehicles capable of conducting scientific research on either the planet Venus or Saturn’s moon Titan, was made to a successful SBIR Phase I awardee, Thin Red Line USA d/b/a MKF Interests, LLC (TRLU). The solicitation provided that the award of a Phase I contract would also serve as a request for proposal for Phase II follow-on projects. NASA received proposals for Phase II projects from three Phase I awardees, including TRLU and the protester, Global Aerospace Corporation (Global).
Based on a multi-step evaluation process--including peer reviews and assessments and prioritization by NASA field centers and the cognizant mission directorate--TRLU’s proposal was ranked 23d and Global’s proposal did not break the top 65. When it learned on March 8, 2017 that it would not receive an award, Global requested and received a debriefing from NASA. On March 27, 2017 (within 10 days of its debriefing), Global filed this protest, arguing in part that NASA should have found TRLU ineligible for a Phase II award because it violated the solicitation’s prohibition on performance outside of the United States.
In response to that protest ground, NASA argues that this protest allegation should be dismissed as untimely because it was raised more than 10 days after Global knew or should have known of the basis for protest. Global claimed, however, that the protest ground was timely because it was raised within 10 days of the receipt of its debriefing. In other words, Global believed that the 10-day protest clock did not start until it received its debriefing.
The GAO disagreed, first noting that its Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests, under which a protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation (such as Global’s challenge to the eligibility of TRLU), must generally be filed not later than 10 days after the protester knew or should have known of the basis for its protest, whichever is earlier. While the GAO acknowledged an exception to that general rule when a protest challenges “a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required.” 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). In such cases, the start of the protest clock is delayed, so that any protest basis of which protester is or should have been aware--either before or as a result of the debriefing--must be filed no later than 10 days after the debriefing is held.
Unfortunately for Global, not all debriefings are treated the same. More particularly, not all debriefings are considered to involve “competitive proposals” that trigger the debriefing exception to the general rule. As the GAO explained, in determining whether a given procurement was conducted on the basis of competitive proposals, the use of negotiated procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15--as evidenced by the issuance of a request for proposals--is the hallmark. In contrast, FAR § 6.102 identifies “other competitive procedures” distinct from competitive proposals, including: (i) Brooks Act procurements for architecture/engineer services, (ii) procurements for basic and applied research conducted pursuant to a Broad Area Announcement; and (iii) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procurements pursuant to FAR subpart 8.4. Under established GAO precedent, procurements conducted under “other competitive procedures” are not conducted on the basis of “competitive proposals” as contemplated by the Bid Protest Regulations, and, therefore, the debriefing exception does not apply in those procurements.
While SBIR procurements are not expressly identified in FAR § 6.102, the GAO explained that applicable statutory provisions make clear that a competitive SBIR procurement is an “other competitive procedure”. More particularly, NASA procurements are subject to Chapter 137 of Title 10 of the United States Code. One such applicable statute is 10 U.S.C. § 2302(2), which defines the term “competitive procedures” to mean not only procedures under which the head of an agency enters into a contract pursuant to full and open competition, but also the “other competitive procedures” set forth in FAR § 6.102, as well as “a competitive selection of research proposals resulting from a general solicitation and peer review or scientific review [under the SBIR program].” (The GAO notes that a materially similar provision, 41 U.S.C. § 152, applies to procurements conducted by civilian agencies pursuant to Title 41 of the U.S. Code.) Thus, SBIR procurements are not conducted based on “competitive proposals” and do not trigger the debriefing exception.
Here, the GAO found that Global knew or reasonably should have known the basis for its protest relating to TRLU’s eligibility for award before NASA’s March 8, 2017 notice of SBIR awards. Indeed, Global did not claim that it learned any new information regarding TRLU from its debriefing. Under such circumstances, any protest challenging TRLU’s eligibility had to be filed, at the very latest, within 10 days of the agency’s notice of its award decision. By attempting to rely on the debriefing exception and waiting until March 27, 2017 (after its debriefing), Global waited too long. The GAO rejected its eligibility protest ground as untimely.
To avoid this outcome, offerors considering a post-award protest in any procurement context should work to avoid being lured by the siren song of the debriefing exception. You must always look first at the nature of the procurement and whether it involves the required “competitive proposals” or simply “other competitive procedures”. If the former, as in FAR Part 15 procurements, the debriefing exception will operate to delay the time to file--to either 10 days after the debriefing or, if you’re seeking a mandatory stay under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), 5 days after the debriefing. But in the latter case, the general rule applies and protests must be filed within 10 days of when you knew or should have known the basis of its protest, whichever is later. And if you’re pursuing an SBIR award, you can count on not being able to take advantage of the debriefing exception. In any event, be careful out there.
Posted on 07/13/2017 in Bid Protests, GAO Decisions, Small Business / Socioeconomic Issues | Permalink
Protests Are Not a Potential Solution to Every Problem
Contractors sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of protests as a sort of silver bullet that can be used, at least in theory, to remedy any problem. Whether this perspective reflects the contractor’s own past protest success or its perception that the procedure has allowed others to avoid bad outcomes, it substantially overstates the availability–and hence ultimate utility--of the protest option. The recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision in Made in Space, Inc., B-414490 (June 22, 2017), points out one of the most significant hurdles that can prevent a contractor from using a protest to achieve its business goals. While the case involves the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, which introduces a number of context-specific issues, it provides a useful reminder of the basic rules governing who has standing to protest.
In this protest, Made in Space, Inc. (MIS) challenged a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) award of an SBIR Phase II contract to FOMS, Inc. for research and development relating to optical fiber manufacturing in space. More particularly, MIS argued that the award was improper because MIS had previously developed a similar technology--using private funding--such that FOMS’ technology is not sufficiently innovative to qualify as research and development under the SBIR program.
The GAO’s decision focused on whether MIS was an “interested party” with standing to protest the award. In this regard, the bid protest regulations under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 define an interested party as an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. In general, a protester is an interested party to challenge a procurement where there is a reasonable possibility that its proposal would be in line for award if the protest were sustained. As the GAO noted here, determining whether a given party has standing to protest involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the nature of issues raised, the benefit or relief sought by the protester, and the party’s status in relation to the procurement.
The nature of the SBIR program proved to be a significant factor in the GAO’s consideration of the standing issue in this case. The program has three phases: Phase I, in which small business awardees test the scientific, technical, and commercial merit and feasibility of a certain concept; Phase II, during which the former Phase I awardee performs further research and development, often resulting in a well-defined, deliverable prototype; and Phase III, in which the small business must obtain non-SBIR private or public funding to develop the prototype into a viable commercial product for sale to government and/or private sector markets, or continue its research and development efforts.
The SBIR solicitation here listed 28 topics, including one that encompassed the development of technologies to manufacture optic fiber in orbit. FOMS submitted a proposal for and was awarded a Phase I contract in June of 2016. After completing Phase I, FOMS sought and was awarded a Phase II award in March of 2017. This protest followed.
As noted, MIS argued that because its technology already met the technical readiness level the solicitation required to be achieved by the end of Phase II, no NASA investment in similar technology was proper. In response, after reciting the fundamental rules governing standing, the GAO stated that MIMS is not an interested party to challenge the Phase II award to FOMS. It went on to explain why.
First, and most importantly, while MIS submitted four proposals for a Phase I award under the solicitation, none of those proposals involved the topic under which FOMS’ awards were made. As the GAO noted, MIS instead made the business decision to fund its development of space-based fiber optic manufacturing technology outside of the SBIR program. For this reason, MIS was not eligible for funding under Phase II under the operative solicitation topic and, therefore, MIS would not be next in line for award to further develop its technology.
The GAO also rejected the argument that its sustaining the protest would require the agency to compete the requirement outside of the SBIR program, using full and open competition. According to the GAO, that assertion reflects a misunderstanding of the SBIR program, under which the purpose of Phase II is to continue the effort undertaken in Phase I. Unlike in more traditional contracting contexts, there is no agency-developed work statement articulating specific agency requirements to which an offeror would respond. Instead, the SBIR awardee’s Phase I technical concept is what the Government considers for a Phase II award. In addition, the SBIR program does not contemplate head-to-head competition between offerors--or allowing other companies to compete for a contract to develop an awardee’s Phase I concept. Here, where NASA determined that FOMS’ technology merited further funding under Phase II, the GAO declined to allow MIS to disrupt that decision simply because it has conducted parallel development using non-SBIR funding.
Finally, the GAO noted that, since MIS would not be next in line for award even if the agency decided to use full and open competition to procure the development sought under Phase II because MIS claims to have already achieved the required technical readiness level.
The GAO’s concluding remarks underscore the limits of the protest procedure. The GAO observed that, instead of basing its bid protest on the desire to obtain a government contract to develop its similar technology, MIS’ purpose here was to preclude NASA from funding another firm’s development of a similar, nascent technology with comparable potential commercial application. “Such interest does not qualify the firm as an interested party.”
Disappointed offerors and others considering a protest as a means to remedy a problem must remember that the procedure is not a one-size-fits-all solution. While it can be a powerful tool for an interested party wanting to challenge what it considers to be problematic solicitation terms or an erroneous award decision, there are limits to the usefulness of protests. Before undertaking the effort and expense of filing a protest, unhappy companies should conduct their own analysis of standing. If they are not an interested party with respect to the problem at hand, they should look for another way to solve that problem.
Posted on 07/06/2017 in Bid Protests, GAO Decisions, Small Business / Socioeconomic Issues | Permalink
Cost Realism Analysis Sets a High Bar for Everyone
Effective communication of all sorts requires attention to detail, accuracy, and clarity. Simply put, words matter. In many contexts, numbers matter too. And while some circumstances may call for the use of generalization, puffery or creative ambiguity, proposal preparation calls for a more straightforward approach. As the recent Government Accounting Office (GAO) decision in AdvanceMed Corporation, B-414373 (June 1, 2017), reminds us, accuracy and clarity are especially important when a solicitation provides for a cost realism analysis. The case offers invaluable lessons for all participants of a bidding process involving a cost realism analysis. For offerors, it highlights the need to really explain their proposed approach so that agencies can really understand what they are analyzing for cost realism. And for potential protesters, it underscores the need to really dissect both the offeror’s recorded explanation and the agency’s documented understanding to identify any discrepancies.
The AdvanceMed matter involved the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issuance of a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) task order under a request for proposals (RFP) for Medicare and Medicaid program integrity services. The solicitation called for proposals to support the agency’s fraud, waste, and abuse detection, deterrence, and prevention activities within the Western Jurisdiction. Offeror proposals were to be assessed on a best-value basis, considering cost and five non-cost factors, including accomplishing and integrating functional requirements, key personnel and staffing plan, and past performance. When combined, the non-cost factors were more significant than cost.
The RFP also provided that the evaluation of proposed costs would include a cost realism analysis. This approach required the agency to document its assessment of the likely costs under each offeror’s technical approach and document the basis for its conclusion that the proposed costs were (or were not) realistic for the work to be performed. To enable this evaluation, the solicitation required offerors to provide a Basis of Estimate, including details about the assumptions and rationales used in preparing their proposals, as well as a break down of the proposed hours and costs by each of the tasks—Investigations, Transition, Vulnerabilities, Data Analysis, Lead Management, Appeals Support, Support to CMS, Support to Law Enforcement, Information Technology, and Quality Assurance.
CMS awarded the task order to Health Integrity, LLC. While AdvanceMed’s bid received a slightly better technical rating than the awardee, after the agency’s cost realism adjustments to both offerors’ proposed costs, AdvanceMed’s bid came in at $20.56 million more than that of Health Integrity. CMS explained its decision—in light of non-cost factors being more important than cost—on the basis that a marginal difference in technical merit did not justify the 23.96% cost premium associated with AdvanceMed’s proposal.
AdvanceMed protested, focusing on the Investigations task, among others, and asserting that the agency’s cost realism analysis was inaccurate and insufficient. In addition to raising other protest grounds, AdvanceMed argued that Health Integrity’s proposal “double-counted” hours in a way that resulted in its costs being understated, particularly those relating to the critical Investigations task. For example, in justifying the proposed hours for Investigator/Auditors, the awardee’s Basis of Estimate described its assumptions concerning the number of investigations that could be maintained by each Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Investigator/Auditor on a rolling basis. However, AdvanceMed’s analysis of this proposal revealed that the same Investigators/Auditors assigned to perform the Investigations task work were also proposed to work on multiple other tasks. In fact, the awardee’s submitted cost summary indicated that these personnel were to perform work related to all of the other enumerated tasks. As a result, AdvanceMed argued that Health Integrity did not actually price all of the hours it estimated for the Investigations task, understating the proposed cost by $5.2 million on that task alone. AdvanceMed pointed out this sort of double-counting throughout the awardee’s proposal, noting that just four labor categories accounted for $13 million of understatement.
CMS responded by explaining that it reviewed the proposed hours by solicitation line item number (SLIN) and by labor category to determine whether the labor category was appropriate to perform the relevant tasks and whether the offeror allocated an appropriate amount of hours to complete the tasks as required. The GAO found this approach to be flawed because the agency’s evaluation at the SLIN level would not necessarily have revealed that the awardee double-counted and that the same FTEs proposed for the Investigations task were also proposed to perform a substantial number of hours on other tasks. The proper analysis, according to the GAO, required an evaluation of the level of effort at the task level.
Health Integrity argued that its Basis of Estimate indicated that the FTEs, whose primary task was Investigations, would also be supporting another task. The GAO was not persuaded by this response, as it failed to explain why such a substantial number of Investigator/Auditor hours were also allocated to perform all of the other enumerated tasks. The awardee then went on to make a semantic argument: when it stated that the primary task was Investigations it was referring to investigations in an ordinary sense, and nearly all of the enumerated tasks involve some element of investigation. The GAO found this argument was unsupported by the awardee’s own proposal language, throughout which the awardee listed the primary tasks that a particular labor category would perform as they corresponded to the enumerated tasks with an upper-case letter. Thus, the most reasonable interpretation was that “Investigations” referred to the Investigations task.
Ultimately, the GAO found that there was nothing in the record to suggest that CMS really understood that the level of effort the awardee estimated for the Investigators to perform the primary task of “Investigations” included not only the work required by the Investigations task but also every other task in the statement of work. Failing to understand, and thus reasonably evaluate, the extent to which the awardee’s proposed costs for the Investigations task were realistic in light of its technical approach undermined the agency’s cost realism analysis, and the protest was sustained.
The decision itself does not make clear whether Health Integrity was attempting to artificially reduce its proposed cost or simply missed the double counting in the process of preparing its proposal. But at the end of the day, that doesn’t matter. Regardless of how the double counting ended up in the proposal, its presence in the proposal ultimately prevented Health Integrity from being able to perform the task order. If you want to win the award and survive a protest, you need to clearly and accurately lay out your technical approach and proposed cost in a way that will give the procuring agency an easy-to-understand, valid basis to conclude that your costs are realistic based on your proposed approach. If you don’t do that, the agency may not even have the chance to fully understand your proposal and reach a defensible conclusion about cost realism. If you do, however, you will rob your disappointed competitors of the ammunition they need to successfully protest on that basis.
Judith Araujo and Eric Whytsell are responsible for the contents of this Article.
Posted on 06/28/2017 in Bid Protests, Bids and Proposals, Evaluation and Award, GAO Decisions, Solicitations / Proposal Preparation | Permalink
Proposals Must Provide Clear Answers That Leave Agency Evaluators with No Questions
In the 1967 film, Cool Hand Luke, the Captain famously says to the inmates, “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” All too often, the same could be said to describe the issue at the core of protest decisions. A common theme running through many such decisions is a lack of effective communication that leads to poor ratings that in turn sink proposals. The recent Government Accounting Office (GAO) decision in Interactive Government Holdings, Inc., B-414071; B-414071.2 (February 2, 2017) serves as an important reminder of the importance of submitting clear and complete proposals that “deliver the mail” and remove any reason for evaluator concern.
The matter involved a protest by Interactive Government Holdings, Inc. (Interactive) of the contract award to ADC Management Services, Inc. (ADC) by the Army’s National Guard Bureau, for non-personal support services for the Air National Guard (ANG) Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP). The request for proposals (RFP) provided that a contract would be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government based on four evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) management approach, (2) technical approach, (3) past performance, and (4) price.
In addition to its other protest grounds, Interactive challenged the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the management approach factor. For this factor, the RFP required offerors to describe their: (1) approach to staffing for 54 states and territories; (2) proposed personnel’s qualifications; (3) payroll processes for personnel in 54 states and territories; and (4) proposed subcontracting approach.
Interactive argued that it should have received a higher rating under the management approach factor, asserting that the agency had assessed a weakness on the basis of “a lack of understanding or appreciation of Interactive’s flexibility and approach to staffing.” In response, the agency explained that it had based the weakness on its interpretation of Interactive’s proposed number of yellow ribbon support specialists (YRSS) and regional leads to fulfill the RFP requirement to provide support services at 91 different necessarily meant that a number of the proposed regional leads would also have to perform the tasks required of the YRSS. From the agency’s perspective, Interactive’s failure to clearly state where the regional leads would be located created concerns that regional leads might not be able to successfully carry out their dual duties if they were stationed at wings with busy YRRP operations.
Interactive pooh-poohed those concerns, contending that the agency “makes far too much of the absence of specific information in [Interactive’s] proposal” about where regional leads were to be stationed. It also attempted to excuse its lack of detail by claiming that the RFP did not give offerors the authority to choose the wing/state where regional leads would be assigned.
GAO did not agree. Indeed, after the obligatory statement that its review of agency decisions entails neither a new evaluation nor second guessing of the agency but instead consists of an examination of the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, GAO made short work of Interactive’s arguments.
According to GAO, because the RFP required offerors to describe their staffing approach to providing support services at 91 ANG wings located throughout 54 states and territories, each offeror, not the agency, was responsible for choosing how to provide staffing to meet the RFP’s support service requirements. For this reason, GAO found no merit in the contention that Interactive lacked authority to decide where to place regional leads. Similarly, GAO rejected the notion that the agency had made “far too much” of the information missing from Interactive’s proposal, explaining that “it is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal with adequately-detailed information, or risk an unfavorable evaluation.”
In the end, GAO found that Interactive had merely disagreed with the agency’s interpretation and had failed to offer any facts to show that the agency’s concern regarding regional leads was unfounded or that its evaluation of Interactive’s management approach was unreasonable – and, therefore, denied this ground of protest.
The key take-away here is that offerors who fail to submit a well-written proposal with adequately-detailed information that addresses the RFP requirements risk an unfavorable evaluation. Given the significant discretion afforded to agency conclusions in evaluations, it is always difficult and often impossible to successfully argue that the agency unreasonably interpreted your proposal. The best approach is to work to avoid finding yourself in that situation – by making sure your proposal clearly and completely responds to the solicitation requirements and answers any potential questions before the agency has any reason to ask them. The failure to do so may very well turn into a “failure to communicate” that can’t be remedied through a protest.
Posted on 06/01/2017 in Bid Protests, Bids and Proposals, Evaluation and Award, GAO Decisions, Solicitations / Proposal Preparation | Permalink