• 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

Applied Business Management Solutions Incorporated, LLC, B-405724, December 15, 2011

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • January 9, 2012
  • Incumbent StatusPrice Reasonableness

Link:         GAO Opinion

Agency:    Department of the Army

Disposition:  Protest denied.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GAO Digest:

1. Protest that agency improperly accepted awardee’s plan to hire incumbent personnel based on claim that personnel will be unavailable is denied where there is no significant countervailing evidence reasonably known to agency that should or did create doubt as to accuracy of awardee’s representations regarding hiring plan.

2. Allegation that agency failed to conduct price reasonableness analysis based on claim that awardee’s price was unrealistically low fails to state valid basis for protest where solicitation provided for award of fixed-price contract and did not provide for price realism analysis.

3. Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal is denied where record reasonably supports evaluation and protester’s arguments reflect mere disagreement with agency judgments.

 General Counsel P.C. Highlight: 

Applied first asserts that the awardee’s proposal should have received a lower rating under the management plan factor because, according to Applied, the awardee proposed incumbent personnel that the awardee knew or should have known would be unavailable to perform the contract. Applied is the incumbent contractor for the requirement at issue. Applied contends that the incumbent personnel will not be available to perform the protested contract for two reasons. First, Applied asserts that based on the differential between Applied’s and the awardee’s bottom-line prices, the awardee “cannot” offer the same level of employee benefits as Applied, and, therefore, the personnel will be unwilling to agree to employment with the awarde. Second, Applied asserts that Applied itself intends to retain many of the personnel for work on other projects. GAO states that as a general matter, in evaluating proposals an agency may reasonably rely as accurate on information provided by an offeror in its proposal. On the other hand, an agency may not accept representations in a proposal at face value where there is significant countervailing evidence reasonably known to the agency evaluators that should or did create doubt as to whether the representations are accurate.

While it is true, as Applied points out, that the awardee’s proposed staffing approach involves the retention of most of the incumbent workforce, but there is no evidence in the record that the agency knew of Applied’s purported intent to retain the incumbent personnel for work on other projects. Further, Applied is mistaken that the awardee’s comparatively lower bottom-line price necessarily demonstrates that the awardee cannot offer employee benefits equal to those offered by Applied. To the contrary, the awardee’s lower price may reflect a different technical approach, lower overhead costs, or a lower profit margin, rather than a lesser benefits plan. In sum, because GAO sees no significant countervailing evidence in the record that created doubt–or should have created doubt–on the part of the agency as to the accuracy of Applied’s representations regarding the firm’s proposed staffing approach, this protest claim is denied.

Next, Applied alleges that the awardee proposed lower labor rates than did Applied, and, therefore, the awardee will be unable to retain qualified personnel to perform the contract. GAO states that the purpose of a price reasonableness review in a competition for the award of a fixed-price contract is to determine whether the prices offered are too high, as opposed to too low.

Applied’s argument reflects a lack of understanding as to the distinction between price reasonableness and price realism. Arguments, such as the one raised by Applied here, that an agency did not perform an appropriate analysis to determine whether prices are too low such that there may be a risk of poor performance concern price realism. A price realism evaluation is not required where, as here, a solicitation provides for the award of a fixed-price contract and does not include a requirement for a price realism evaluation. Accordingly, GAO dismisses Applied’s allegation because it does not constitute a valid basis of protest.

Finally, Applied asserts that the agency’s evaluation of Applied’s proposal was unreasonable because, in Applied’s view, the agency improperly failed to assign any strengths to the proposal and improperly assigned weaknesses to the proposal. Applied asserts that its proposal should have received a strength under the management plan factor because the proposal described the firm’s 97% personnel retention rate. GAO states that in reviewing a protest against the propriety of an evaluation, it is not GAO’s role to independently evaluate proposals and substitute its judgment for that of the contracting activity. Rather, GAO will review an evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations; a protester’s mere disagreement with the evaluation does not show that it lacked a reasonable basis.

The solicitation announced that offerors’ management plans would be evaluated for the provision of “a clear and concise approach for recruiting, hiring, [and] retaining personnel to include maintaining adequate workforce and filling vacancies.” Applied acknowledges that the firm’s proposal “did not highlight its recruiting and hiring plans.” Given the solicitation’s announcement that an offeror’s recruiting, hiring, and retention approach would be evaluated, and given Applied’s concession that its proposal did not emphasize two of these three elements, GAO does not view as unreasonable the agency’s determination not to assign the proposal a strength related to Applied’s retention rate.

Applied also asserts that the three weaknesses assigned to the firm’s proposal under the management plan factor were unreasonable. In this regard, Applied first argues that the weakness for a failure to include a detailed manpower matrix was improper because the proposal included a staffing matrix.

The solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate whether an offeror’s management plan “provides a manpower matrix with proposed skill sets with the minimum qualifications required . . . to successfully accomplish the PWS tasks.” The staffing matrix in Applied’s proposal does not include proposed skill sets or minimum qualifications. Without citation to any specific sections of its proposal, Applied argues that “[q]ualifications, skill sets, and labor rates are easily found within other areas of [Applied’s] proposal.” It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements and allows a meaningful review by the procuring agency. The staffing matrix in Applied’s proposal omits information that was called for in the solicitation, and Applied has not adequately explained where the required information appears in the firm’s proposal. Accordingly, GAO views the agency’s determination to assign the proposal a weakness related to this omission as reasonable.

Applied also objects to the weakness its proposal received regarding the proposed program manager’s qualifications. The solicitation states that the program manager must have a Bachelor’s degree or 10 years of documented experience in managing multiple-site, multidisciplinary (i.e., facility and logistics) service support contracts. As the agency explains, the résumé of Applied’s proposed program manager reflects experience from 2005 to 2011 with managing a multidisciplinary contract, but reflects that prior to 2005 her experience was limited to facility coordination functions. In other words, the record shows that the résumé did not reflect 10 years of the type of experience that was specified in the solicitation. Accordingly, GAO sees no basis to question the agency’s judgment that Applied’s proposal deserved a weakness related to the proposed program manager’s qualifications. The protest is denied.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of: Mission 1st Group, Inc.

July 22, 2021

Matter of David Jones, CPA PC

October 13, 2017

Quest Diagnostics, Inc., B-405081.5, December 19, 2012

June 26, 2013

ABSG Consulting, Inc., B-407956; B-407956.2, April 18, 2013

May 22, 2013

Comments are closed

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