Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Army
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Proposal Completeness
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: A finding that a protester submitted a proposal or other information as claimed requires evidence that the agency received the information; absent such evidence, there is no basis for GAO to question the agency’s representation as to what was or was not received.
Industrial Construction & Trading Company (ICTC) protests the rejection of its proposal under a solicitation, issued by the Department of the Army (Army), for line haul, heavy lift, and transport services.
The solicitation provided for award on a “best value” basis, considering factors such as price, technical, management, and past performance. Past performance information was to be submitted by June 25, 2010. Offerors were required to list up to six contracts performed in the past three years, with current points of contact. ICTC submitted a spreadsheet, with 12 entries listing 13 prior contracts, as its past performance information on June 25. The Army did not evaluate the proposal because the spreadsheet it received from ICTC did not include full periods of performance, full descriptions of the listed contracts, or points of contact, as required. ICTC claims that it submitted a spreadsheet that did in fact include the required information. In support of its claim, ICTC furnished a copy of the spreadsheet to GAO that it allegedly sent to the agency by e-mail on June 25; it is different from the agency’s version–which supports its evaluation–and does include the required information.
GAO states that a finding that a protester submitted a proposal or other information as claimed requires evidence that the agency received the information. Absent such evidence, there is no basis for GAO to question the agency’s representation as to what was or was not received. ICTC furnished GAO with an acceptable version of the spreadsheet, but could not document that this corrected spreadsheet was the version which was actually sent to the Army, nor could ICTC explain how the agency received an incorrect version spreadsheet. Consequently, GAO held that there is no basis to question the agency’s representation as to the spreadsheet it received, or otherwise to conclude that the Army misevaluated the information submitted by ICTC. The protest is denied.