Opinion ID: 4538247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evaluation of Agile’s Proposal

Text: Agile submitted a proposal in the small-business suite. On April 24, 2018, the Encore III contracting officer sent letters to all small-business offerors, including Agile, Case: 19-1954 Document: 48 Page: 5 Filed: 06/02/2020 AGILE DEFENSE, INC. v. UNITED STATES 5 announcing that the agency’s discussions with offerors had concluded and that each offeror should provide its final proposal revision (“FPR”) to the agency by May 2, 2018. A. 2415–16. During its review of Agile’s FPR, DISA determined that many of its proposed CR rates fell more than one standard deviation below average rates (“Below-Deviation Labor Rates”). A. 2658–59. DISA further determined that for these Below-Deviation Labor Rates Agile had based its proposed rates on salaries paid to pools of workers which included workers who did not meet minimum solicitation requirements. See, e.g., A. 298–99, 2439, 2658–60. Concerned that Agile’s overall pricing methodology might be defective, A. 2659–60, DISA expanded its review to Agile’s proposed CR labor rates that fell within one standard deviation of the average rates (“Within-Deviation Labor Rates”). A. 2660, 2664–65, 2765–66. It sent Agile an evaluation notice stating that the rates it proposed for a total of sixty-six LCATs were based upon salaries paid to pools of workers which included workers not meeting the solicitation’s minimum education and experience requirements. A. 2765–67. In response, Agile submitted a second FPR in which it indicated that it had “updated all the salary surveys for the labor categories the Government included in” its evaluation notice. A. 2802. In revising its proposal, Agile increased many of its proposed CR rates. A. 2612–13, 3003–04. Ultimately, its final proposal yielded a “total evaluated price” that was too high to place it among the twenty lowest-priced, technically-acceptable offerors in the small-business suite. A. 3106–07, 3118; see also A. 1281 (explaining that an offeror’s “total evaluated price” would be calculated by adding its proposed FP rates to its adjusted proposed CR rates). Agile was therefore not selected for a contract award. A. 3107. Case: 19-1954 Document: 48 Page: 6 Filed: 06/02/2020 6 AGILE DEFENSE, INC. v. UNITED STATES