• 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

In Best Value Procurement, Proposals’ Technical Merits Must Be Considered

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • November 11, 2013
  • Blog Articles
  • 0 Comments

*** On this Veterans Day the Bid Protest Weekly would like to extend heartfelt thanks to all the brave men and women in the Armed Forces—past, present, and future—for their service to our country***

 

Bid Protest Weekly Newsletter by Bryan R. King, Attorney, General Counsel PC

Date: Monday, November 11, 2013, 10:00am EST

Trailboss Enterprises, Inc., B-407093, November 6, 2012

In a procurement to be awarded on a low-price, technically acceptable basis, the procuring agency will generally evaluate offerors’ proposals merely to determine if they are technically acceptable before moving on to a determination of which proposal is the lowest priced. However, agencies conducting a best value procurement cannot make such a quick and easy determination. In a best value procurement, agencies are required to evaluate and compare the qualitative strengths and weaknesses of each proposal under consideration in order to determine which proposal offers the best value to the government.

In Trailboss Enterprises, Inc., the procuring agency failed to abide by this evaluation requirement. Here, the U. S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) issued a solicitation for aerial delivery services. The solicitation informed offerors that an award would be made on a best value basis, considering three technical factors (Past Performance, Staffing, Implementation) as well as price. When combined, the three technical factors were significantly more important than price. The Staffing and Implementation factors were to be rated according to strengths and weaknesses as well as evaluated risks. Under the Past Performance factor, proposals would be assigned confidence ratings based upon the offeror’s references. Where an offeror had little to no experience, an “unknown confidence” rating would be assigned.

TRANSCOM received three offers to the solicitation, including offers from the protester, Trailboss, and the selected awardee, CAV International, Inc. After receipt of final proposals, TRANSCOM determined that the proposals for Trailboss and CAV received identical ratings of “acceptable/low risk” for both the Staffing and Implementation factors. The differences in the two proposals were in the Past Performance ratings, as well as the offered prices. Where Trailboss received a rating of “substantial confidence” under past performance, CAV received an “unknown confidence” rating. As to price, CAV’s offered price was 11% lower than the price offered by Trailboss.

Despite TRANSCOM determining that each of the proposals demonstrated an ability to meet the solicitation requirements, none of the proposals received any evaluated strengths. In its best value determination, TRANSCOM found that because Trailboss and CAV both received the same “acceptable/low risk” rating under the Staffing and Implementation factors, the proposals were “equal” under those factors. TRANSCOM determined that the relevant difference in the proposals was Trailboss’ “substantial confidence” past performance rating versus CAV’s “unknown confidence” rating. Ultimately, TRANSCOM determined that this one difference did not merit paying the 11% price premium that would go along with selecting Trailboss’ proposal. Thus, CAV was selected for award.

Trailboss filed a protest with GAO, challenging the agency’s best value decision. Trailboss argued that TRANSCOM’s best value analysis was flawed because it failed to consider the technical distinctions between the proposals, and instead limited its analysis to the proposals’ technical acceptability. GAO agreed with the protester, finding that where a solicitation provides for evaluative ratings of the proposals, agencies have to actually consider and compare the qualitative differences between the proposals. GAO further stated that an assigned rating should only be used as a guide by the agency, and that the agency should perform a deeper analysis of the underlying basis for the ratings given to each offeror.

Here, GAO found that TRANSCOM failed to meaningfully consider the technical or qualitative distinctions between Trailboss’ and CAV’s proposals, and instead relied upon assessed technical acceptability. GAO determined that a source selection such as this, lacking any substantive analysis or consideration of whether one proposal is technically superior to another, is insufficient and cannot form the basis of a reasonable source selection decision. GAO sustained the protest, and recommended that TRANSCOM perform a new evaluation of proposals.

This case is significant given the rise in procurements conducted on a low-price, technically acceptable basis. Contractors should be very cognizant of the evaluation method called for by the solicitation, and whether the agency will evaluate according to low-price, technically acceptable or best value. Under the latter evaluation method, the agency has to actually consider and compare the technical merits of each proposal under consideration. To do otherwise, ending the evaluation after proposals are determined to be technically acceptable, effectively converts the procurement from best value to low-price, technically acceptable. This may present a contractor with grounds for a successful protest.

Share

Related Posts

GAO’s BID PROTEST – 2020 YEAR IN REVIEW

January 19, 2021

Agencies Must Provide an Accurate Estimate of Requirements in a Solicitation

May 29, 2014

Counting Independent Contractors As Employees Can Lead to Rejection of a Proposal

May 16, 2014

Bad Idea to Assume Agency Will Know What Proposal Was Supposed to Say

May 6, 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
  • 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