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

By: Lane F. Kelman

As opportunities in the private sector remain, at best, stagnant, the public sector has become increasingly competitive. The desire to gain a competitive advantage, however, must be tempered by compliance with ethical obligations. When attempting to gain a competitive advantage, it is crucial to avoid the appearance that your advantage is unfair. A recent decision by the GAO, Health Net Federal Services, LLC, highlights the balance that must be had when you seek a competitive advantage and the risk if the balance is not maintained.

On November 9, 2009, the GAO sustained the bid protest of Health Net Federal Services, LLC (HNFS) of the award of a contract to Aetna Government Health Plans, LLC (AGHP). HNFS and AGHP issued offers in response to request for proposals issued by the Department of Defense TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) for T-3 TRICARE managed health care support services. TRICARE is a managed health care program implemented by the Department of Defense (DOD) for active-duty and retired members of the uniformed services, their dependents, and survivors.
HNFS was the incumbent contractor. Its bid protest focused on a number of different issues, the most compelling challenge was that AGHP should be excluded from the competition based on an alleged unfair competitive advantage stemming from AGHP’s hiring of a former TMA employee (the TMA Chief of Staff) to prepare AGHP’s proposal.

In evaluating the possibility of an unfair advantage on behalf of AGHP, the GAO acknowledged that a guiding principle is the obligation of contracting agencies to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in government procurements. Where a firm may have gained an unfair competitive advantage through its hiring of a former government official, the firm can be disqualified from a competition based on the appearance of impropriety - even if no actual impropriety can be shown - if the determination of an unfair competitive advantage is based on facts and not mere innuendo or suspicion.

The GAO went on to conclude that the former TMA Chief of Staff that was hired by AGHP did, in fact, have access to non-public propriety information. As a result of the actual access to this information, a prima facie case was established that an appearance of impropriety existed. Importantly, the access to propriety information and appearance of impropriety did not, in and of themselves, require disqualification. Rather, AGHP, despite a recommendation from TMA's ethics advisor to disclose the Chief of Staff's involvement to the Contracting Officer ("CO"), failed to do so. Since the CO was not provided the opportunity to investigate the issues stemming from the use of a high-level former TMA employee in the preparation of its proposal, the appearance of impropriety was necessarily not assessed by the CO prior to the award and the protest was sustained.

The recent emphasis on ethics on government contracting requires contractors to avoid any conduct that even appears to be unethical. The case highlights the care that must be taken when contractors hire former government employees and involve them in the procurement process. If the employee was involved in the planning of the project or procurement while employed by the government, or if the employee had access to non-public information, a risk exists that the relationship will result in the disqualification of the proposal. Regardless, there should be full disclosure to the Contracting Officer before submitting a proposal.

Lane F. Kelman is a Partner in the firm and is a member of the firm’s Federal Contract Practice Group. He may be contacted for advice regarding federal construction contracting matters, including issues involving ethics in federal contracting. His e-mail address is lkelman@cohenseglias.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

We recently presented a number of seminars on the topic “How to Succeed in the New World of Federal Construction Contracting” that dealt with the shift from sealed bidding to negotiated procurement in federal construction contracting, as well as the increased use of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) and Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC).  (See our upcoming seminar schedule and agenda).  One of the byproducts of this shift in procurement policy has been a reduction in the number of competitive opportunities resulting from the combination of many smaller projects into very large negotiated contracts.  As the examples below demonstrate, the era of $320 million construction contracts and $9 million to $24 million task orders has arrived.

Shaw-Dick Pacific, LLC, Honolulu, Hawaii, was awarded a $175,983,523 (first increment) firm-fixed-price contract for construction of the Hawaii Regional Security Operations Center at Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station Pacific. An additional $144,016,477 will be funded upon the passage of FY2008 Military Construction Appropriation Bill making the total amount $320,000,000. The contract contains one option which may be exercised within three months, bringing the total cumulative value of the contract to $320,040,000.  Work will be performed at Wahiawa, Hawaii, and is expected to be completed by June 2010.  This contract was competitively procured with 38 proposals solicited and two offers received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is the contracting activity (N62742-07-C-1329). 

Rogers-Quinn Construction, Inc., Bonsall, Calif., was awarded $9,820,000 for firm-fixed-price Task Order 0009 under a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract (N68711-02-D-8062) for construction of the Reserve Training Center at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms.  The work to be performed provides for the construction of a single-story, steel framed structure with spread footing foundation, concrete floor, reinforced masonry walls, standing seam metal roofing system, fire protection system, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, specially constructed weapons storage area (armory), lithium battery storage area, staging areas, classrooms, storage and supply areas, drill hall, administrative spaces, locker and shower rooms, workshops, electrical utilities and mechanical utilities. Work will be performed in Twentynine Palms, Calif., and is expected to be completed by June 2008.  The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.

Harper Construction Co., Inc., San Diego, Calif., was awarded $24,855,000 for firm-fixed price Task Order 0005 under a previously awarded multiple award construction contract (N68711-02-D-8019) for family housing replacement in the Desert View and Club Street Area at Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow.  The work to be performed provides for design and construction services for 74 family housing units and a community center, consisting of all necessary site clearing, grading, demolition, improvements, structures, and off-site work as required. Work will be performed in Barstow, Calif., and is expected to be completed by June 2008.  The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The GAO issued a decision today reiterating a familiar theme: Where a protester’s proposal failed to provide information specifically requested by the solicitation and necessary for evaluation purposes, the agency’s evaluation of the proposal as “poor” was reasonable.

The solicitation required the submission of a proposal with sections addressing the offeror’s past performance, technical approach, staffing, and management approach, and supplied instructions as to what proposals were to address in relation to each of the RFP’s evaluation factors. Because the agency’s evaluation was dependent upon information furnished in the proposal, it was the offeror’s obligation to submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate. The protester simply failed to do so. Therefore, the agency’s evaluation of the proposal, and determination to not award a contract under this solicitation to the protester, was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and was reasonably based. See Matter of Phyllis M. Chestang, B-298394.3, November 20, 2006.

All government contractors should be aware that federal agencies have a great deal of discretion in determining whether a proposal is responsive to the listed evaluation factors. Before submitting a proposal, contractors should try to put themselves in the position of the government’s source selection team. Does the proposal answer the questions that the government will have about an offeror’s experience, past performance, and technical qualifications? If your proposal doesn’t seem convincing and responsive to you, the chances are that the government will not think very much of it either. In the world of negotiated procurement and proposal preparation, it is vital to be thorough, responsive, and persuasive. A contractor needs to sell the company’s capabilities and approach throughout the process.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks