• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Agencies Must Provide an Accurate Estimate of Requirements in a Solicitation

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • May 29, 2014
  • Blog Articles
  • 0 Comments

Bid Protest Weekly Newsletter by Bryan R. King, Attorney, General Counsel PC

Date: Thursday, May 29, 2014, 9:45pm EST

System Studies & Simulation, Inc., B-409375.2, B-409375.3, May 12, 2014
Deciding on the prices to offer in response to a solicitation for a federal government contract is not exactly an easy process. It requires a multitude of considerations, including the work required, the number of personnel needed to do that work, the labor rates of those personnel, and much more. Making this process even more difficult, the procuring agency will sometimes change the requirements of the procurement without warning. As you may be able to guess, agencies aren’t really supposed to do that.

In System Studies & Simulation, Inc., the Dept. of the Army issued a solicitation seeking advanced instructor pilot support services. The solicitation anticipated the award of an ID/IQ requirements-type contract to provide instructor pilots to perform flight instruction on various types of helicopters. Offerors were instructed to calculate their offered prices based on quantity estimates included in the solicitation.

The solicitation included an estimated requirement for 63 instructors across 6 different helicopter types. The protester System Studies & Simulation, Inc. (“S3”) submitted a proposal in response to the solicitation based on these estimates. There was one offeror with a lower proposed price than S3, and award was made to that lowest priced offeror.

S3 was actually the incumbent contractor for the requirement, already providing the helicopter instructors for the Army. The day after the award was made to the other offeror, S3 was informed by the Army that the requirements of its current contract would be reduced significantly.

After a discussion with the Army, S3 learned that the cut in requirements was not only limited to its current contract, but the Army was reducing its requirements for the foreseeable future. As S3 submitted its proposal for the new solicitation based on the original requirements, it was understandably upset by the news.

S3 filed a protest with GAO, arguing that the Army’s change to the requirements substantially altered the procurement requiring a solicitation revision. The requirements changed from 63 instructors across 6 helicopter types, to an estimated requirement of 18 instructors across 7 helicopter types. S3 asserted that had it known of the significant reduction in requirements, it would have altered its proposal. GAO agreed with S3, finding that S3 was prejudiced by the Army’s failure to revise the solicitation once it became aware of the change in requirements.

GAO stated that as a general rule, it is improper for an agency to make a contract award on a basis that is fundamentally different from the basis of competition specified in the solicitation. Where a change in requirements is discovered, the agency should inform offerors of the change and allow them an opportunity to submit revised proposals based on the revised requirements.

The Army made two primary arguments in response to the protest. First, the Army argued that the agency official that made the award decision was not aware of the changed requirements at the time she made the award decision. However, GAO pointed to evidence that the commanding officer of the agency was aware of the change in requirements. As a result, GAO determined that the organization as a whole was aware of the change in requirements, which should have resulted in a solicitation revision.

The Army also argued that because the solicitation anticipated the award of a requirements contract, there was no obligation for the government to order the estimated quantities included in the solicitation. GAO was unpersuaded by this argument, as well. GAO concluded that a requirements contract does not relieve an agency from the fundamental obligation to use the most accurate estimates of its requirements in conducting a procurement.

This obligation exists because without accurate estimates provided by the agency, offerors cannot prepare proposals that accurately reflect the agency’s needs. Without accurate proposals, the agency cannot reasonably determine if it is getting the best possible price for its requirements.

Ultimately, GAO determined that the Army’s award decision was improper, as the agency did not afford offerors an opportunity to compete for the actual requirements. There was no way to conclude how the competition would have actually played out if the offerors had known of the changed requirements before submitting their proposals. As a result, GAO sustained the protest and recommended that the Army either amend the solicitation to reflect the actual requirements, or cancel the solicitation and start over.

Share

Related Posts

GAO’s BID PROTEST – 2020 YEAR IN REVIEW

January 19, 2021

Counting Independent Contractors As Employees Can Lead to Rejection of a Proposal

May 16, 2014

Bad Idea to Assume Agency Will Know What Proposal Was Supposed to Say

May 6, 2014

Government Contracting as a Team Sport: The Consideration of Subcontractor Experience

April 25, 2014

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411