• 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

G4S Government Services, B-401694; B-401694.2, November 4, 2009

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • November 4, 2009
  • Price RealismProposal Evaluation

Link:         GAO Opinion

Agency:    Department of Homeland Security

Disposition:  Protest denied.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAO Digest:

1. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of the realism of awardee’s proposed price is denied where record shows agency conducted well-documented price evaluation that was consistent with solicitation requirements.
2. Protest challenging evaluation of offerors’ technical proposals and past performance is denied where the record shows that agency’s evaluation was reasonable and supported by the record, or that there was no prejudice to the protester as a result of the alleged errors since, even if the offerors’ ratings were adjusted as protester argues they should be, protester’s proposal still would be rated no higher than the awardee’s lower-priced proposal.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

G4S first alleges that ICE failed to perform a proper price realism evaluation of BI’s price proposal, insofar as the awardee’s price was significantly below both the independent government estimate (IGE) and the prices of the other offerors. GAO states that where, as here, an RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract, the agency generally is not required to analyze the “realism” of offerors’ proposed prices; this is because a fixed-price (as opposed to a cost-type) contract places the risk and responsibility for contract costs and ensuing profit or loss on the contractor. However, an agency may, as the agency did here, provide for the use of a price realism analysis for the limited purpose of assessing offerors’ understanding of the solicitation’s requirements or the risk inherent in offerors’ proposals. The nature and extent of a price realism analysis, as well as an assessment of potential risk associated with a proposed price, are generally within the sound exercise of the agency’s discretion. GAO’s review of such an evaluation is limited to determining whether it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

GAO finds the agency’s price realism analysis of BI’s proposal to be unobjectionable. The record establishes that the agency performed various analyses regarding BI’s price realism and proposal risk. Specifically, the agency’s actions included an analysis of BI’s field office staffing ratios, BI’s use of different staffing ratios for different types of cases, and the comparison of BI’s staffing ratios to the current ISAP program staffing ratios, as well as the comparison of BI’s unit, CLIN, and overall prices to those of the other offerors. The agency reasonably concluded that BI’s staffing ratios, while higher than those of the other offerors and the current ISAP program were reasonable, and thus the corresponding prices were realistic. Although G4S raises a full range of arguments, its protest fails to demonstrate that any of the agency’s actions were inadequate or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation or applicable statute or regulation. G4S essentially disagrees with the level of scrutiny applied by the agency to BI’s proposal. As discussed above, however, an agency has considerable discretion in determining the nature and extent of required price realism and proposal risk assessments in the context of fixed-price contracts. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that G4S’s various arguments challenging the agency’s analysis and judgments reflect G4S’s mere disagreement or dissatisfaction with the agency’s determinations, and provide no basis to sustain the protest.

G4S next challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the staffing plan subfactor. The agency rated G4S’s staffing plan as “good” based on three strengths and no weaknesses, and BI’s staffing plan as “good” based on four strengths and no weaknesses. GAO states that in reviewing an agency’s evaluation, it will not reevaluate technical proposals; instead, GAO will examine the agency’s evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria and procurement statutes and regulations. An offeror’s mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation is not sufficient to render the evaluation unreasonable.

GAO finds the agency’s evaluation process unobjectionable, and G4S’s focus on a mathematical counting of the number of strengths entirely misplaced. The record reflects that the source selection authority (SSA) was clearly aware that G4S’s proposal exceeded both the project director experience and education requirements, and the mere fact that the SSA combined these two strengths into a single sentence within the source selection decision provides no basis on which to sustain the protest. Moreover, the protester has identified no prejudice as a result of the agency’s action here, as the SSA did not consider staffing plans to be a discriminator between the BI and G4S proposals, irrespective of the number of separately-listed strengths.

G4S challenges the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ past performance. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated BI’s past performance as “outstanding” based on five identified strengths and no weaknesses, and G4S’s past performance as “satisfactory” based on two identified strengths and three weaknesses and associated risks. As with many of its other challenges to the evaluation, the record shows that there was no prejudice to G4S arising from any alleged error in this area, that is, even if the protester prevailed on this protest ground as argued, the offerors both would receive past performance ratings of “good.” From the record GAO sees no reasonable possibility that the SSA would have selected G4S’s higher-priced proposal instead of BI’s (at least) equally-rated, lower-priced proposal. The protest is denied.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Science Applications International Corporation

February 28, 2022

Matter of WRG Fire Training Simulation Systems, Inc.

January 12, 2022

Matter of Patronus Systems, Inc.

December 3, 2020

Matter of Mancon, LLC

July 7, 2020

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