Federal Construction Contracting Blog : Federal Construction Contracting Law Firm : Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC : Construction Law, Dredging and Claims

By: Lane F. Kelman

In making an award on initial proposals, is a tradeoff only between the two (2) highest-rated, highest-priced proposals appropriate?  The GAO, in a recent decision,Coastal Environments, Inc., B-401889, dated December 18, 2009, provides important clarification.  The decision beckons closer scrutiny of awards by unsuccessful offerors.

In Coastal Environments, Inc., the RFP identified six (6) evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) personnel and company qualifications, (2) management capability, (3) technical excellence, (4) past performance, (5) small business participation, and (6) price; the RFP also identified several subfactors under the non-price evaluation factors. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the “best value” to the government, all factors considered.

Eight proposals were received and evaluated using the adjectival rating system.  The contracting officer, as the Source Selection Authority (‘SSA”), reviewed the evaluation findings and performed a price/technical tradeoff between the two most highly rated proposals; those of Ecological Communications Corporation (“ECC”) and another Offeror.  Those two proposals were also the highest priced proposals. The Source Selection Authority (“SSA”) ultimately selected ECC for award after concluding that “due to the highly specialized nature of the work…ECC’s technical superiority” justified paying an additional $2,984 to ECC.

Coastal, who was not part of the tradeoff process, filed a protest and alleged, among other issues, that the tradeoff process should not have been restricted to ECC and the other most highly rated offeror. Coastal’s proposal, while not as highly rated, was $17,434.44 lower in price than GCC’s proposal.  The GAO held that the SSA impermissibly limited the price/technical tradeoff analysis to a comparison of the two highest-rated, highest-priced proposals.  The SSA failed to conduct any qualitative assessment of the technical differences between the two (2) highest-rated, highest-priced proposals and any of the other technically acceptable proposals to determine whether either of these proposals contained features that would justify the payment of a price premium.

The GAO found that the two higher-rated, higher-priced proposals considered in the tradeoff both received overall adjectival ratings of “Good” and “Low Risk,” while Coastal’s proposal received the next lowest rating of “Acceptable” and “Low Risk,” but was priced approximately 20 percent lower. The GAO concluded that a proper tradeoff decision must, per Federal Acquisition Regulation § 15.308, provide a rational explanation of why a proposal’s evaluated technical superiority warrants paying a premium.  Here, the SSA did not identify what benefits in ECC’s proposal warranted paying a premium to ECC when compared to Coastal’s lower-priced proposal, which was found to be acceptable and low risk.

Lane F. Kelman is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A decision just published by the Government Accountability Office ("GAO"), Matter of Burchick Construction Co., mpany, involved a request for proposals issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs ("VA") for the construction of an ambulatory care center . After receiving five proposals and evaluating the technical evaluation factors, the VA conducted discussions with the offerors that only addressed their price proposals. The VA determined that the offeror providing the best value was Massaro Corporation at a firm fixed price of $38,530,000. Burchick Construction Company, whose price proposal of $36,686,000 was the lowest price offered, challenged the award of the contract to Massaro.

During the evaluation of technical proposals, the VA had determined that Burchick's proposal contained "weaknesses" in a number of factors, including past performance, identification of key personnel, and small business participation. Based on these perceived weaknesses, the VA scored Burchick with a total of 50.8 points out of a possible technical score of 100 points. The VA had given Massaro a score of 67.3 points. When the VA decided to discuss the price proposals, it also decided that it would not conduct discussions with the offerors with respect to the firms' technical proposals, because "none of the offerors could materially improve its technical proposal."

 

Burchick contended that the VA did not conduct meaningful discussions since the VA did not apprise Burchick of, or provide it with the opportunity to address, the significant evaluated weaknesses in its technical proposal. Burchick explained that it could have addressed each of the VA's concerns that resulted in the downgrading of its technical evaluation.

 

While the GAO conceded that agencies have considerable discretion in determining whether and how to conduct discussions in a negotiated procurement, it found that where discussions are conducted, an agency must identify deficiencies and significant weaknesses, at a minimum, in the proposals of each offeror in the competitive range. The GAO concluded that discussions must be meaningful, meaning that the discussions must be sufficiently detailed so as to lead an offeror into the areas of its proposal requiring amplification or revision.

 

The GAO found that the VA failed to conduct meaningful discussions with Burchick, and that there was a reasonable possibility that Burchick was prejudiced, given that it offered the lowest price and could have addressed the VA's concerns such that it may have been offering the "best value" to the government. The GAO sustained the protest and recommended that the VA conduct discussions with the offerors about the technical proposals, and make a new source selection decision.

The GAO also criticized the agency's reliance on a numerical comparison of the proposals to determine "best value." While not specifically challenged by Burchick, the GAO noted that a mechanical comparison of the technical and price point scores is not a valid substitution for the qualitative assessment of the technical differences or the benefits associated with a higher priced proposal. Point scores are merely guides, and the record must contain adequate documentation of the price/technical tradeoff to support an agency's judgment concerning the significance of the differences is reasonable and adequately justified in light of the evaluation scheme. 

 

It should be noted that the Federal Acquisition Regulation does address the extent of the discussions which are to be conducted with offerors in the competitive range. FAR 15.306(d)(3) provides that:

 

At a minimum, the contracting officer must, subject to paragraphs (d)(5) and (e) of this section and 15.307(a), indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror still being considered for award, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The contracting officer also is encouraged to discuss other aspects of the offeror’s proposal that could, in the opinion of the contracting officer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award. However, the contracting officer is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment.

 

While it is not uncommon for the GAO to defer to the discretion afforded the agency in negotiated procurements, that deference, as demonstrated in the Burchick decision, is not absolute. In instances where, as here, the agency's actions are clearly not in accordance with the requirements of the FAR, seeking redress in a protest before the GAO can sometimes result in a favorable outcome.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a decision issued on April 20, 2007, but published today because of a protective order, the GAO denied a protest by Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-296741.14; B-296741.15 against the award of a contract to Rowe Contracting Services, Inc., issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for janitorial services at the DIA Analysis Center. Olympus challenged the proposal evaluation and best value determination.

Among other things, Olympus asserted that Rowe’s proposal should not have been rated excellent under the technical factors because it did not include a required security awareness plan.  In this regard, in evaluating Rowe’s initial proposal, the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) noted that Rowe had not provided a security awareness plan; the agency pointed this out to Rowe as a weakness during discussions.  In response, in its final proposal revision (FPR), Rowe provided a security awareness plan comprised of a short statement explaining, among other things, that Rowe was familiar with current Defense Security Services and DIA Regulations and security manuals, and stating that Rowe would comply with all DIA security policies. The FPR also included copies of several documents, including an Annual Security Awareness Briefing, a Refresher Security Briefing, and a Security Awareness Bulletin (self inspection handbook for contractors). The TEB determined that this information was sufficient to respond to its original concern.  Olympus argued that the information should not have been deemed sufficient because it did not include a narrative explaining how each of the included documents would be utilized during performance.

The GAO concluded that the RFP did not require that the security awareness plan be presented in any particular format or include any particular information; thus, the fact that the plan could have included additional information did not require the agency to find it deficient.  “The plan Rowe presented included information addressing security awareness and, given the absence from the RFP of detailed informational requirements, we think the agency reasonably could determine that this information was sufficient to address its concerns. Olympus’s disagreement with the agency’s conclusion is not sufficient to establish that the evaluation is unreasonable.”

While the outcome of the protest might have been the same for other reasons, we find it to be somewhat inconsistent, based on prior GAO decisions, for the GAO to take the position that instead of providing a security awareness plan, it was sufficient for Rowe to simply furnish a “short statement” explaining that it was familiar with DIA security policies.  A “plan” is usually required to enable a TEB to be certain that an offeror has thought out the implementation of agency policy.  The GAO has frequently found that the mere recitation of compliance with an RFP requirement is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance.  The fact that the TEB was willing to accept a “short statement” instead of a security awareness plan should not have endorsed by the GAO.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks