Link: GAO Decision
Protestor: DRIVE Developments, Inc.
Agency: Department of the Army
Disposition: Protest Denied.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
GAO Digest:
Agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as “adequate” under two of the solicitation’s evaluation factors, and elimination of the protester’s proposal from the competitive range, are unobjectionable, where the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and reasonably based.
General Counsel PC Highlight:
DRIVE Developments, Inc. protested the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under an RFP for a pilot condition-based maintenance (CBM) program for Army vehicles. After award was initially made to Lockheed Martin Global Training & Logistics, two offerors filed protests with the GAO, in response to which the agency elected to take corrective action. In reevaluating proposals, the agency decided to establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals and conduct discussions. After being eliminated from the competitive range, DRIVE filed two agency-level protests before filing a protest with the GAO.
The GAO found it reasonable that the agency assigned a weakness to DRIVE’s proposal for failing to discuss the experience and qualifications of its proposed workforce, pointing out that the discussion of tasks to be performed by the workforce does not demonstrate the skill of the personnel comprising the workforce. The agency’s assessment of a weakness for failing to proposal any small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation was also reasonable, as the RFP indicated an agency goal of five percent for SDB participation. The GAO declined to consider DRIVE’s assertions of bias, finding that DRIVE’s protest failed to meet the GAO’s threshold requirements for consideration.
Offerors bear the burden of submitting adequately written proposals that comply with all requirements in the RFP. When preparing an offer, a firm should make sure it provides detailed explanations for each of its proposals, adequately supporting each of its particular plans. Failure to provide sufficient detail may lead to the assessment of weaknesses to that firm’s proposal.