• 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

Competitive Range – Matter of: Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • August 25, 2017
  • Competitive RangeEvaluationsUnstated Evaluation Criteria
  • 0 Comments

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Keywords:  Unstated evaluation criteria, competitive range.

Decided: May 19, 2017

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Evaluations must not rely on unstated evaluation criteria.  When assessing the competitive range, evaluation must be on specific aspects of a proposal, not based on point scores or adjectival ratings.

Summary of Facts

Pinnacle Solutions, Inc. (Pinnacle) was one of three small businesses responding to a Request For Proposals (RFP) issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for aircraft logistics, integration, engineering services, and configuration management.  Relevant to the protest, the RFP included, among other things, a requirement NASA had overall authority to establish work conditions, priorities, etc., and offeror was to provide personnel to meet these goals.  Because an existing collective bargaining agreement was already in place, the RFP called for offerors to submit a management plan addressing relationships with subcontractors, the offeror’s corporate philosophy, risks and mitigation approaches, and the offeror’s approach for ensuring good relations under collective bargaining agreements (CBA).

NASA received three offers.  Pinnacle was assessed four strengths, one significant weakness, and eleven weaknesses.  The contracting officer reviewed the offers and determined the competitive range based on point scores and adjectival ratings, as well as counting the number of strengths and weaknesses identified.  The contracting officer did not look behind the scores or offer a reasoned consideration of the actual findings in the evaluations.  Of the three offers, the contracting officer eliminated both Pinnacle and one other from the competitive range.

Basis for Protest

Pinnacle cites two bases for their protest: first, Pinnacle took issue with the weaknesses assessed in their proposal; second, Pinnacle argued it was improper for the contracting officer to exclude Pinnacle from the competitive range based on a mere comparison of point scores and price, and based on unsupported speculation that holding discussions wouldn’t result in a different assessment.

Protest Sustained

Unreasonable Evaluation of Proposal

The GAO first reviewed the evaluation, and, based on three examples, concluded the evaluation was unreasonable and applied unstated evaluation criteria.  For example, the RFP required the executive manager have “full authority to act for the Contractor on all matters relating to the contract.”  The contracting officer assigned a weakness, in that the executive manager would not have complete hiring authority, and viewed this as an indication the manager did not have “full authority.”  However, the GAO found the RFP did not reasonably advise offerors executive managers must have complete hiring authority.  This, the GAO held, was “at best, a latent ambiguity.”

As a second example, Pinnacle was awarded a weakness for its approach to managing scheduling and breaks.  NASA, in evaluating a weakness, noted Pinnacle’s approach, which included both setting and posting their policy regarding breaks, was as ineffective as posting a highway speed limit sign to “ensure that motorists will not speed.”  The GAO found this evaluation was unreasonable.  The RFP did not require offerors include enforcement mechanisms.  Thus, an evaluation which considered enforcement of the policies was beyond the scope of the evaluation criteria.

Finally, Pinnacle was awarded a significant weakness for having two CBA’s without any consideration of Pinnacle’s proposed steps to limit risks involved.  The evaluation did not acknowledge Pinnacle’s proposed steps, nor did it establish the steps were insufficient to mitigate risk.  Because this assigned weakness was unjustified based on a review of the record, Pinnacle’s challenge to the evaluation was upheld.

Competitive Range Determination

The contracting officer made their competitive range determination based on point scores, adjectival ratings, and price.  The contracting officer also expressed that discussions with Pinnacle would be of no use, without review of the specific aspects of the proposal.

The GAO has previously held, and held again in the case at bar, reliance on adjectival ratings or point scores is not proper when making competitive range decisions.  Rather, such decisions must be made on the evaluation of specific aspects of an offeror’s approach.

Recommendation

Given the above, the GAO recommended NASA reevaluate Pinnacle’s proposal, relying on the stated RFP criteria.  Should the RFP need clarification regarding the basis for evaluation, the offerors should be given an opportunity to revise their proposals.  Upon completion of the reevaluation, the GAO recommended NASA make a new competitive range determination.  Next, if NASA finds additional proposals are included in the competitive range, meaningful discussions should be had equally with all offerors.  Finally, the GAO recommended NASA reimburse Pinnacle for costs related to the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

For more information on timely filing, assistance with a potential bid protest, or general government contracts legal representation, please visit our website, our publication, the Bid Protest Weekly, or contact us at 703-556-0411.

Share

Related Posts

Please, Make My Bid Protesting Day by Not Documenting Your Award Decision.

November 17, 2022

Open Sesame! Ya Gotta Get the Agency Report and Records.

October 24, 2022

No LPTA Unless They Say.

September 14, 2022

You wanted Professional, I got your professional!

August 17, 2022

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