• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

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

Evolver Inc., Federal Aviation Administration Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition, 09-ODRA-00495

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • January 26, 2010
  • Evaluation Criteria

Link: ODRA Opinion

Disposition: Protest sustained.

Keywords: Evaluation factors

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Agencies are not allowed to deviate from the stated evaluation criteria in selecting an awardee.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

In 2008 the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center (Center) issued a solicitation to award a Time and Materials indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract providing second-level maintenance and engineering services related to the National Airspace System (NAS). The technical evaluation team (TET) received proposals from eleven offerors and began the review process. Following an extensive review of the proposals based on a series of technical and price related factors, the contracting officer, on recommendation from the TET, determined that an award to Enroute Computer Solutions (ECS) constituted the “best value” to the Government. Upon receiving notice of the award, Evolver, Inc. (Evolver) filed a timely protest with the FAA’s Office of Dispute Resolution (ODRA).

Evolver’s protest centered around two main contentions: (1) the Center improperly evaluated Evolver’s and ECS’s proposals under the corporate experience/past performance factors by over-crediting ECS and lacking a rational basis for Evolver’s rating and (2) the Center improperly evaluated Evolver’s proposal for its program management plan by using an unstated evaluation criterion.

Evolver first challenged the TET’s rating of ECS’s corporate experience/past performance as unreasonably high and lacking a rational basis. While ODRA will not substitute its judgment for the contracting official, it will analyze the evaluation process to ensure that stated evaluation criteria are followed in arriving at the award decision. Here, ODRA found that the TET had properly evaluated ECS’s past work as meeting the standards for scope of work, but that the size of the projects were smaller and thus outside the language of the criteria used in the solicitation. On this rationale, ODRA determined that TET’s rating of ECS’s corporate experience/past performance lacked rational basis.

Next, Evolver claimed that the Center improperly evaluated its price proposal by not performing a cost analysis, conducting an improper price reasonableness evaluation, and using undisclosed evaluation criteria when evaluating Evolver’s proposed price. Principally, Evolver was concerned that the Center’s price analysis was incorrectly based on the contracting official’s determination that Evolver’s low price constituted a risk to successful contract performance. ODRA determined that the contracting official’s price reasonableness evaluation was improper because under the Acquisition Management System (AMS) price reasonableness signals the need for additional cost analysis where a significantly low price raises concerns with regard to fairness and reasonableness. As such, when Evolver’s proposed price was much lower than ECS’s, the contracting official should have requested cost data from the parties in order to perform a cost analysis as to whether there were any risks associated with the low proposed price. Since this was not done during this procurement, the ODRA again agreed with Evolver’s protest ground.

Finally, Evolver claimed that the Center used evaluation criteria not contained in the solicitation as it related to recruitment and retention of personnel. ODRA, in reviewing the record, determined that the solicitation clearly stated that salaries would not be a part of the evaluation. However, the contracting official evaluated salaries as they related to recruitment and retention of personnel under its price evaluation. Furthermore, ECS was credited in this analysis for its ability to retain qualified employees.

Thus, for the above discussed reasons, and because Evolver was prejudiced by the actions of the Center, ODRA recommended that Evolver’s protest be sustained. In addition, ODRA recommended that the Center reevaluate ECS’s and Evolver’s proposals, request cost data as necessary, and determine whether Evolver’s proposal under the new analysis is appropriate for the award.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of: PAE National Security Solutions, LLC

July 22, 2021

Matter of: Transworld Systems, Inc; Account Control Technology, Inc.

February 21, 2018

Matter of: Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC

November 30, 2017

Matter of: AT&T Corporation

November 20, 2017

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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 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

+1-571-223-6845