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

By: Michael H. Payne

Government contractors frequently use incorrect terminology to describe a solicitation. For example, clients often call me and ask why they were not awarded a contract even though they had submitted the lowest bid. The first thing that I ask is whether the solicitation was a Request for Proposals ("RFP"), or an Invitation for Bid ("IFB"). If it was an RFP, the award was probably based on best value and the lowest-priced proposal would not necessarily receive the award. If the solicitation was an IFB, there would be more of a question about why an award was not made to the lowest-priced bidder. Of course, even in sealed bidding the lowest bidder must also be responsive and responsible in order to receive an award, so there can be a valid reason as to why the lowest bidder did not receive the award.

The best way to show that you understand the basics of the federal procurement process is to remember that responses to an IFB (sealed bid solicitation) are referred to as "bids," and responses to an RFP (negotiated procurement) are referred to as "proposals" or "offers." In other words, the proper terms under an IFB are "bid," "bidder," and "sealed bid," and the proper terms under an RFP are "proposal," "offer," and "offeror." Your lawyer will become very confused if you mix these terms by saying, for example, "I just submitted a bid on an RFP." Sometimes, the only way that I can figure out what my client is talking about is to ask for the solicitation number (the "R" or the "B" in the middle will be a dead giveaway), or I may simply ask my client to send me a copy of the solicitation.

Of course, government procurement personnel frequently add to the confusion. RPPs are often referred to as "negotiated procurements" even though there usually are no negotiations (or "discussions"), and contracting officers often refer to both bids and proposals as "bids," To make matters worse, the GAO and the courts refer to protests of either an IFB or an RFP as "bid protests." No wonder there is so much confusion.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including teaming arrangements, negotiated procurements, bid protests, claims, and appeals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne

There is an old saying that "you win some, and you lose some." Well, if you are a construction contractor who competes in the world of Multiple Award Task Order Contracting ("MATOC"), you usually lose. Under sealed bidding, which dominated the procurement of federal construction for many years, a contractor who was not the low bidder could always compete for the next project. In the MATOC arena, a contractor who is not selected to be one of the chosen few to compete for task orders over what is often a three to five year period may not be able to compete for the "next project" for a long time. What this means is that there are a few winners, but there are many more losers.

Even if a contractor is fortunate enough to be selected as one of the MATOC master contract holders, there is no guarantee of being selected for future task orders. Every construction MATOC features a "seed" project that serves as the basis of the price competition for the evaluation of the offers on the master contracts. If a contractor does not win the seed project, there may not be another task order for a long time, and the award of the ensuing task orders may go to someone other than the low bidder. The reason for this is that most construction MATOCs are negotiated, best value, procurements ("RFPs"), and past performance, experience, technical merit, quality of personnel, small business subcontracting, and other evaluation factors may come into play. Although it can be argued that the award of a master MATOC should pre-qualify all of the MATOC holders, we have heard complaints from a number of contractors who lose out in the competition for task orders because they do not score well on past performance, or one of the other evaluation factors. This has never made sense to me because if a contractor has won the fierce competition for one of the master MATOCs, price should be the discriminator for the task order awards. If the contractor is not technically qualified to receive a task award on a lowest price proposal, why was the contractor selected as one of the MATOC holders in the first place?

Those who are really left out in the cold, however, are the construction contractors who fail to win one of the master MATOC awards. Simply because a contractor may not have scored particularly well technically, or simply because the contractor's price on a seed project may have been too high, does not mean that it will always be that way. A contractor can do a much better job of putting together a competitive proposal the next week, but if all of the upcoming projects are tied up in MATOCs, the door is closed. Simply because a contractor submits the lowest price on a seed project does not mean that the contractor will be similarly competitive on future projects. It is for this reason that I have been a frequent critic of indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity ("IDIQ/MATOC") contracting for construction. I do not believe that FAR 16.5, dealing with various indefinite delivery contracts, was ever meant to be applied to construction, and I believe that the system unfairly penalizes a lot of very qualified contractors who simply are not adept at proposal writing. Construction was successfully procured using sealed bidding for many years, and that system was more open and fair. The new system simply results in too many losers and not enough winners. (See the earlier article "Has the Corps of Engineers Gone MATOC Crazy?").

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters. He also serves as the Executive Director of FedCon Consulting, an ancillary business of the firm that involves former contracting officers, procurement and technical personnel, as well as lawyers, in providing assistance to federal construction contractors in the preparation of proposals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne

In a negotiated procurement, where a contractor submits a proposal in response to an RFP (Request for Proposals), FAR 15.506(a)(1) states that “An offeror, upon its written request received by the agency within 3 days after the date on which that offeror has received notification of contract award in accordance with 15.503(b), shall be debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award.” It is a good idea to request a debriefing if you did not receive the award because you may learn something that will help you to improve your next proposal, or you may learn that you were treated unfairly and that you may have a basis to file a protest. The offeror who was awarded the contract should also request a debriefing because there may be information about how the proposal can be made even better the next time. In addition, if a disappointed offeror files a protest, an awardee may be in a better position to defend a protest after receiving a debriefing.

The Contracting Officer is not permitted to discuss the details of other proposals, but the regulations, at FAR 15,506(d) do require that:
At a minimum, the debriefing information shall include --
(1) The Government’s evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror’s proposal, if applicable;
(2) The overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices), and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror;
(3) The overall ranking of all offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection;
(4) A summary of the rationale for award;
(5) For acquisitions of commercial items, the make and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror; and
(6) Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed.

See FAR 15.506 for the rules relating to postaward debriefings.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and frequently represents contractors during debriefing and provides advice as to whether the contractor’s rights have been violated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the government has expanded its uses of Contracting by Negotiation through the issuance of RFPs ("Requests for Proposals"), as opposed to Sealed Bidding and the issuance of IFBs ("Invitations for Bid"), contractors have had to adapt to this new way of doing business.  All too often, a perfectly capable contractor is not selected for award, even though its price was the lower than its competitors, because it failed to adequately address the evaluation factors listed in the solicitation.  A recent decision by the GAO in the Matter of Capitol Drywall Supply, Inc. ("CDS"), decided on January 12, 2009, highlights the difficulty that a contractor faces when the agency and the GAO conclude that a proposal misses the mark.

The proposal by CDS was one of six submitted to the Corps of Engineers, and was the second lowest in price.  The problem, however, was that CDS was rated as the lowest on the technical merit evaluation factor due, primarily, to a lack of detailed information describing the firm's proposed procedures to perform the statement of work requirements, as well as a failure to demonstrate experience performing contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity, and which were valued at $1 million or more.  Finding that the lowest-priced and third lowest-priced proposals, which received significantly higher technical ratings than the CDS' proposal, represented the best value to the agency, awards were made to those firms; with respect to the latter award, the agency concluded in a price/technical tradeoff determination that the higher technical merit of the higher-priced proposal warranted the payment of the price premium associated with it.

Specifically, the agency evaluators found that while the firm's proposal provided a brief response to the detailed technical approach requirements, in which CDS mentioned the firm's intention to maintain inventory and warehouse operations, specific statement of work requirements were not referenced, as was required (e.g., regarding subcontractor relationships, safety and health plans, quality control, and planned communication and information management), and no planned procedures or detailed methodologies were provided to explain how the firm intended to perform the statement of work requirements. Similarly, under the delivery evaluation factor, while the CDS proposal mentioned the use of certain vehicles and noted that certain reports could be produced, the evaluators found that insufficient detail was provided to ensure an adequate number and type of vehicles would be readily available for simultaneous deliveries, as required, and no detailed methodology was presented to either explain what procedures would be followed to ensure that materials would be expeditiously obtained and delivered, including delivery to remote locations, or to explain in any meaningful detail the firm's planned procedures to meet stated reporting requirements.

In reiterating its position when a protester has failed to adequately respond to the requirements of a solicitation, the GAO stated that "In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selections, our Office examines the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws. See Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 223 at 4. It is an offeror's responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal that establishes its capability and the merits of its proposed technical approach in accordance with the evaluation terms of the solicitation. See Verizon Fed., Inc., B-293527, Mar. 26, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 186 at 4. A protester's mere disagreement with the evaluation provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the evaluators' judgments. See Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 10-11. Further, where, as here, technical factors are to be given greater importance than price in the determination of which proposal offers the agency the best overall value, price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and we will not disturb awards to offerors whose proposals have higher technical ratings and higher prices so long as the result is consistent with the evaluation factors and the agency has reasonably determined that the technical superiority outweighs the price difference. See Structural Preservation Sys., Inc., B-285085, July 14, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 131 at 7."

Author's Note:  The lesson to be learned from this case, and others like it, is that a contractor cannot take anything for granted when responding to an RFP.  It is a mistake to assume that the agency knows about your capabilities as a result of previous contracts, and it is similarly a mistake to assume that the government evaluators will learn about your capabilities even though you do not provide detailed information.  Every proposal stands on its own and it is important to prepare your proposal in a manner that provides information that is responsive to the evaluation factors.  Contractors need to make certain that every evaluation factor is addressed clearly and thoroughly.  It is no longer enough to be the best contractor, you now need to be the "best" at putting proposals together, as well.  Most assuredly, you should do everything possible to avoid a conclusion like the one the GAO reached in the CDS case that "[g]iven the lack of detail in CDS's proposal under each technical evaluation factor, we have no basis to question the evaluation."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent GAO decision highlights the need for offerors to fully understand a Request for Proposals (RFP) and to pay close attention to the details when preparing a proposal in response to an RFP.  In C. Martin Company, Inc., the agency rejected the protestor’s proposal, determining that it was technically unacceptable.  The agency discovered that the offeror had referenced outdated regulations, standards, and procedures.  Some of the references were to processes and standards that had been obsolete for at least three years.  It became evident that the offeror had incorporated parts of a prior RFP submission years before on a similar project.

The agency’s technical review team concluded that the proposal was deficient and that the offeror did not have a clear understanding of the RFP’s requirements.  The offeror was not given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies. After the offeror learned of the basis of its rejection during a debriefing, it filed a protest contending that the deficiencies in its proposal were minor and that it should have been given the opportunity to correct its proposal. Its main argument was that its proposal could easily have been corrected. 

The GAO, in denying the protest, stated that neither the ease of the corrective effort nor the “minor” nature of the deficiencies were determinative of whether the proposal should be accepted or rejected. Instead, the GAO held that the need for numerous revisions “evidenced an inherent lack of understanding or awareness of the current RFP’s requirements.”    The GAO succinctly stated in upholding the agency’s rejection of the proposal: “Offerors are responsible for submitting an adequately written proposal, and run the risk that their proposals will be evaluated unfavorably where they fail to do so.”

It cannot be overemphasized that offerors must review and address the RFP’s requirements and that they must be very attentive when drafting their proposals, especially if they copy materials from prior submissions.  If offerors incorporate prior safety, quality control or experience statements in their current submissions, they would be well advised to carefully review and tailor these statements to the RFP. Otherwise, they risk rejection of their proposals, as happened in this case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

“Discussions” in a negotiated procurement between the government and an offeror are the exception, not the norm, as those of you who have submitted a response to a Request for Proposals know.  Too often the government awards a contract on the basis of the initial proposal, without any discussions or negotiations with the offerors.  The reason that the government refrains from formally opening up negotiations is that if discussions occur between the government and one offeror, then the government must hold discussions with all of the offerors in the competitive range.  (FAR 15.306(d)(1).  That can be time consuming.  (It can be argued that the term “Procurement by Negotiation,” as explained in FAR, Part 15, anticipates that discussions and negotiations will actually occur). 

            Of course, not all communications between the government and an offeror constitute “discussions.”   As the Government Accountability Office stated in a recent case, Overlook Systems Technologies, Inc., Nov 28, 2006, “the acid test is whether an offeror has been afforded an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal.” In Overlook, the contracting officer contacted the successful offeror regarding a perceived organizational conflict of interest because Overlook planned to use a subcontractor that had provided a system to the government that Overlook would now “troubleshoot.”  The GAO determined that the contracting officer’s communications with Overlook were similar to the sort of inquiries the government frequently makes to perform a responsibility determination.  The GAO relied heavily on the fact that the government was required to make such a responsibility determination, citing prior GAO decisions that have held that responsibility inquiries are not “discussions.”

            The GAO held that since the dialogue between the contracting officer and the offeror did not result in changes to the proposal, the communications were not “discussions” and the government was not required to have similar communications with the other offerors.  It should be noted that FAR 15.306(b)(2) permits the government to have communications with an offeror to enhance the government’s understanding of, or interpretation of, a proposal without these exchanges being treated as “discussions.”  Contracting officers should be encouraged to make these kinds of inquiries more often rather simply award contracts on the basis of initial proposals and without any communications whatsoever.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link