Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Army
Disposition: Protest sustained.
Keywords: Page Limitations
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: If a Request for Proposals contains a page limitation and an offeror exceeds that page limitation, the appropriate remedy is to eliminate the extra pages and evaluate the remainder in light of the RFP requirements. If the pared-down proposal does not meet the RFP requirements, it is not eligible for award.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
The Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity issued a task order proposal request (TOPR) for defense health information management system support services. The TOPR contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order to be awarded on a “best value” basis as determined by an evaluation of price, and five non-price factors: experience, technical approach, management approach, quality control approach, and past performance. Competition under the TOPR was limited to prior awardees of a multiple-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for similar services. Three contractors submitted proposals, and after conducting an evaluation, the contracting officer determined that the proposal submitted by Technology, Automation & Management, Inc. (TeAM) represented the best value to the government. Irving Burton Associations, Inc. (IBA), one of the competitors, protested the award, alleging that TeAM’s proposal violated the TOPR page limitation on responsive proposals. Consequently, the agency took corrective action by reevaluating TeAM’s proposal in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria, eliminating the portion of TeAM’s proposal that violated the page limitation. Despite this elimination, TeAM’s proposal was still determined to represent the best value to the government. IBA again protested, alleging that eliminating a portion of TeAM’s proposal eliminated TeAM’s transition plan and required milestones. GAO agreed, noting that the remaining portions, which did make some reference to the transition plan and milestones, was not sufficient to satisfy the TORP after enforcement of the proposal page limitation.
IBA also protested the agency’s evaluation of its own proposal, contending that it received lower ratings for experience, technical approach, and management approach than it should have. GAO’s response to this argument, while redacted of most of its specifics, largely agreed with IBA, asserting that the record did not reflect a reasonable basis for the evaluators’ rating of IBA’s proposal.
In light of its determination that the agency’s evaluation of TeAM’s proposal was unreasonable and its conclusion that IBA’s proposal was not reasonably evaluated, GAO sustained IBA’s protest. GAO then recommended that the agency conduct discussions with the offerors, request revised proposals as necessary, re-evaluate the proposals, and make a new source selection determination.