Government Contracts Monitor

Attention to Solicitation Requirements Pays Off in the Long Run

May 5, 2014

The recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision, InTec, LLC, B-408178.4 (Comp. Gen. Feb. 12, 2014), affirms the vital importance of making clear your proposal meets all the solicitation requirements. As this case illustrates, offerors whose proposals fail to demonstrate strict compliance with solicitation requirements have a hard time winning protests alleging the agency unreasonably evaluated their proposal.

In InTec, the protester failed to win one of five blanket purchase agreements (BPA) awarded by the Department of Defense Washington Headquarters Service for professional, technical, analytical and administrative services. InTec protested on the grounds that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable, but GAO found, instead, that the agency reasonably determined InTec’s quotation failed to demonstrate the experience requirements set forth in the Request for Quotations (RFQ).

The RFQ, as amended, provided that the BPAs would be established on a “best value” basis considering experience, past performance, and price factors. InTec challenged the assignment of the agency’s evaluation ratings, contending that the agency erroneously concluded that (i) the firm lacked the experience as a prime contractor on a contract valued at $8 million or more; and (ii) lacked international experience.

In considering whether the decision was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations, the GAO noted that the solicitation limited the total number of contract experiences to five, and permitted evaluators to consider more than one contract number per experience, “only if the subsequent contract number(s) is for requirements that are a continuation of the identical requirements.” Thus, in order for multiple contracts to be considered under the same experience listing, the contract requirements had to be identical, not just similar. Because InTec listed multiple contracts under one experience listing that were related but not identical (and even admitted in its protest that they involved somewhat different requirements), the GAO held the agency acted reasonably when it did not consider the contract in question during its evaluation of InTec’s experience.

The RFQ also emphasized that international experience was highly preferred. In response to pre-proposal Q&As, the agency clarified that vendors’ experience would be considered to be international experience only where contractor personnel were physically at a location outside the United States for a period of “three months or more.” InTec argued that it demonstrated the requisite international experience in its bid by asserting its personnel had been deployed abroad and stating that its proposed subcontractor had “extensive OCONUS deployment experience.” InTec argued this was sufficient to demonstrate international experience for an extended period of time as required by the RFQ. The GAO disagreed, noting that InTec’s use of the word “deployed” was indefinite with respect to time and did not specify that its experience was for “three months or more.” Indeed, InTec actually admitted in its protest that, as used in its proposal, “deployed” “meant the full time range of overseas support, from weeks to months” – not three months or more.

According to GAO, the failure to specify the duration of the deployments meant that InTec failed to clearly show it met the experience requirement, so the agency acted reasonably when it rated InTec’s proposal low on that factor. As GAO reiterated in this decision, “it is a vendor’s responsibility to submit a well-written quotation with adequately detailed information that clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements.”

The takeaway? Read the solicitation carefully and make it as easy as possible for agency evaluators to determine that your proposal clearly meets the solicitation requirements. The less clear the proposal, the harder evaluators have to work, and the more likely they will reach a decision you do not like – and cannot successfully protest.

Heather Joyce is the attorney responsible for the content of this article.