• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

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

“Marginal” Evaluation Still Good Enough for FAR’s Requirement for Multiple Awards of ID/IQ Contracts

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • April 17, 2013
  • Blog Articles
  • 0 Comments

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

Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013, 8:05am EST

CW Government Travel, Inc., d/b/a CWTSatoTravel v. United States, No. 12-708 C, April 11, 2013
It is very interesting how the same sentence can be interpreted so differently by different parties. When those parties are the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims, the difference in interpretation can mean the difference between a successful or unsuccessful protest.

Case in point, in September 2012, GAO heard a protest made by CW Government Travel, Inc., d/b/a CWTSatoTravel (“CW”). CW was protesting an agency’s decision to make a single award in a procurement for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (“ID/IQ”) contract, rather than make multiple awards including CW as one of the awardees. CW challenged the agency’s determination that CW was not qualified or capable to perform, due to its proposal receiving a technical rating of “Marginal.” In the protest decision, the solicitation’s definition of “Marginal” was scrutinized:

“A marginal proposal does not meet Government requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but issues are correctable.”

CW naturally focused on the second part of the definition—“issues are correctable”—and argued that a “Marginal rating” did not mean an offeror was not qualified and not capable of performing the work. GAO disagreed, and instead focused on the first part of the definition finding it to mean a marginal proposal reflected a failure to meet the “requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.” GAO denied the protest, and CW then brought its protest before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Fortunately for CW, the Court had a different interpretation in its decision issued this past week.

At issue in this case is FAR § 16.504, which establishes a general preference in procurements for indefinite-quantity services, for an agency to make multiple awards under a single solicitation to at least two sources. (FAR §16.504(c)(1)(i)). While this FAR provision expresses a general preference for multiple awards, it becomes a mandatory requirement for larger contracts. In any such procurement estimated to exceed $103 million, as in this case, an agency cannot make a single award unless the head of the agency determines in writing that one of the clause’s stated exceptions has been met. (FAR § 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)). One of the available exceptions is where the agency determines that “only one source is qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price to the Government.” (FAR § 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1)(iii)).

The underlying solicitation was issued by the General Services Administration for the award of an ID/IQ contract for travel management services for federal civilian agencies. There were two offerors in the competitive range, CW and Concur Technologies, Inc. In its source selection decision, GSA essentially determined that because Concur’s proposal had a lower price and received a technical rating of “Very Good,” whereas CW’s proposal was higher priced and received a technical rating of “Marginal,” Concur’s proposal was the only qualified and capable source. The agency did note that because the contract exceeded $103 million, it could not make the single award to Concur unless one of the exceptions to FAR § 16.504 were met. Ultimately, GSA determined that the “one source” exception was met, and selected Concur as the sole awardee.

CW challenged the source selection decision, arguing that while its proposal did contain weaknesses, it was not determined to be “Unacceptable.” Rather, GSA assigned CW’s proposal a technical evaluation score of “Marginal,” which according to the definition in the solicitation meant that any issues with the proposal were correctable. CW argued that GSA did not make any finding that CW was not qualified and capable of performing the work, and thus the determination that the “one source” exception applied was incorrect.

The Court agreed with CW, stating that in comparing the two offerors’ proposals with each other, GSA essentially performed an improper cost/technical tradeoff rather than discussing whether CW was qualified and capable of performing the requirements. Focusing on the “issues are correctable” portion of the definition, the Court found that CW’s “Marginal” rating was not consistent with a finding that CW was not qualified and capable to perform the solicitation’s requirements. As a result, the Court found that GSA’s award decision was inconsistent with the FAR, and ordered GSA to conduct a re-evaluation consistent with FAR § 16.504.

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
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • 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
  • Facility Clearance
  • 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
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • 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
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • 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:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 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

+1-703-556-0411