• 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

CFS-KBR Marianas Support Services, LLC; Fluor Federal Solutions LLC January 2, 2015

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • March 31, 2015
  • Bid Protest JurisdictionProtester Comments
  • 0 Comments

Link:         GAO Opinion

Agency:     Department of the Navy

Disposition:   Fluor’s protest sustained; CFS’s protest dismissed.

Keywords:    Meaningful Cost Realism Evaluation; Misleading Discussions

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: An agency may not mechanically apply its own estimates for labor or costs without considering the offeror’s unique technical approach. When an agency has discussions with an offeror, those discussions must be meaningful and not misleading.  An agency must articulate the rationale behind its decisions.
_____________________________________________________________________

CFS-KBR Marianas Support Services, LLC (“CFS”) and Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) protest the award of a contract to DZSP 21 LLC (“DZSP”) under an RFP issued by the Department of the Navy (“Agency”) for base operations support services.

The Agency announced that it would make the award of the RFP on a best-value basis, considering cost and several non-cost evaluation factors. The Agency reviewed eight initial proposals received, engaged in discussions with the offerors, and evaluated the final proposal revisions received. The Agency made the award to DZSP.

Fluor and CFS both filed protests.

Fluor contended that the Agency’s initial evaluation was irrational, and that this led the Agency to conduct misleading discussions with Fluor which resulted in Fluor adding additional unnecessary personnel to its proposal and submitting a cost estimate that was noncompetitive.

First, Fluor’s argued that the Agency never performed a meaningful cost realism evaluation in connection with the offerors’ proposed staffing. The GAO stated that when performing a cost realism analysis, an agency may not mechanically apply its own estimates for labor or costs without considering the offeror’s unique technical approach. Nonetheless, the Agency mechanically applied a government estimate to evaluate the sufficiency of the offerors’ proposed staffing and evaluated all proposals against an undisclosed government estimate of the number of full time equivalent (“FTE”) staff that the Agency deemed sufficient. Based on this estimate, the Agency determined that Fluor, CFS, and DZSP had proposed staffing which was insufficient, and thus, concluded that each of the offerors’ proposed staffing was unrealistic. The Agency failed to provide a cogent explanation for its use of this mechanical application of the government’s estimate. For these reasons, the GAO sustained this aspect of Fluor’s protest.

Second, Fluor contended that the mechanical application of the government’s estimate led the Agency to pose misleading discussion questions to Fluor regarding the sufficiency of its proposed staffing. The GAO stated that when an agency has discussions with an offeror, those discussions must be meaningful and not misleading. Here, the Agency asked each offeror a question that identified the precise number of FTEs by which the Agency considered the proposal deficient. Based upon this question, Fluor revised its proposed staffing by the number of FTEs identified by the Agency, resulting in a cost estimate which was not competitive. Although Fluor’s proposal ranked highest when considering its non-cost factors, it was not selected. Because Fluor’s increased staffing and increased cost was in direct response to the Agency’s discussion question, the GAO concluded that Fluor was misled. The GAO sustained this aspect of Fluor’s protest.

Third, Fluor contended that the Agency essentially abandoned the original staffing estimates that it used to evaluate the initial proposals, demonstrating the arbitrary nature of the original evaluation. Here, all three offerors submitted proposals which the Agency deemed unreasonable. Fluor then revised its proposal by increasing staffing consistent with the precise number identified by the Agency and the Agency gave Fluor an outstanding rating under the staffing and resources factor. However, while both CFS and DZFS added additional staff, each added less than the number identified by the Agency. Nonetheless, DZFS received an outstanding rating and CFS received a good rating. The Agency did not articulate a reason why these offerors received better ratings even though their proposals did not increase their staffing consistent with the identified level. Thus, the GAO concluded that the Agency in effect abandoned its initial evaluation. In the absence of the necessary support for the Agency’s decision, GAO was unable to understand the Agency’s decision, and, therefore, sustained Fluor’s protest.

CFS challenged aspects of the Agency’s evaluation of the technical proposals and alleged that the Agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions. The GAO found no merit in these allegations and found that unlike Fluor, CFS was not misled to its competitive prejudice by the agency’s discussions. CFS’s protest was therefore denied.

The GAO recommended that the Agency reevaluate the proposals and afford the competitive range offerors meaningful discussions based upon its reevaluation of the proposals. Based upon that reevaluation, the GAO further recommended that the Agency solicit new proposals and make a new source selection decision.  The GAO also recommended that the Agency reimburse Fluor for its reasonable cost of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Sea Box, Inc.

January 19, 2022

How to Protest without Antagonizing

May 16, 2016

In Matter of AeroSage LLC, AeroSage, LLC “AeroSage” protested the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons

August 21, 2014

When is a Protester Entitled to Costs of Filing and Pursuing a Protest?

June 20, 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