• 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

Matter of: AT&T Corporation

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • November 20, 2017
  • Bid Protest DecisionsDocumentation of EvaluationEvaluation Criteria
  • 0 Comments

Matter of: AT&T Corporation

Agency: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Keywords:  Evaluation Criteria; Documentation of Evaluation

Decided: October 5, 2017

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:   It is essential that evaluation and source selection decisions are adequately documented.  Where the agency engages in discussions, they must be fair and equitable to all parties involved.

Summary of Facts

On December 6, 2016, the Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) issued Phase II of request for proposals (RFP) to six holders of a government wide agency contract.  The RFP called for a fixed-price task order, seeking a single integrated solution for mobile devices and services related to same.   The devices and services sought were for support of the 2020 Census operations.  Relevant to the protest at hand, the RFP called for solutions that included:

  • Mobile devices meeting USCB usability, performance, and security requirements;
  • Reliable and continuous cellular network coverage; and
  • A technology refresh assessment.

The RFP indicated the award would be based on best value, considering, among other factors, performance/experience and technical approach.  The RFP indicated past performance/experience was the most important factor, with the other non-price factors being equally important.  However, non-price factors were assigned significantly more value than the price factor.  Evaluation called for a determination of which proposals first satisfied the requirements, and then an evaluation of strengths, weaknesses, and risks.

Within the proper time frame, the agency received four proposals, including one from AT&T Corporation (AT&T), and CDW Government LLC (CDWG).  Upon receipt of proposals, the agency engaged in a technical evaluation of the proposals. Next, the agency engaged in discussions.  This was followed by a request for and receipt of revised proposals.  In the final analysis, CDWG’s proposal received the highest technical rank, with a price of $283,492,962.  AT&T’s proposal, ranked second in the technical evaluation, bore a price tag of $191,850,841.

The evaluation of proposals is heavily redacted in the decision.

Basis for Protest

AT&T challenged the agency’s evaluation of proposals, along with their final decision.

Misleading and Unequal Discussions

AT&T complains both their proposal and CDWG’s proposals were determined to have potential bias in their multi-carrier approaches.  However, while CDWG was provided the opportunity to address the potential for bias in their technical exchange, AT&T was not afforded the same opportunity.

Technical Evaluation

AT&T argues their technical approach was evaluated, taking into consideration the agency’s concern for potential bias.  AT&T further argues the source selection decision identified this potential bias as a factor in the decision.  A review of the record establishes a mixed evaluation, with one document indicting the risk was not assessed, another indicating the risk was eliminated, and a third indicating the risk could be mitigated.

Further, CDWG’s assessment included a significant strength for the selected mobile device.  The best value determination portion of the record included this conclusion.  However, there was no supporting documentation in the technical evaluation.

GAO Decision

Misleading and Unequal Discussions

The GAO notes the Federal Acquisition Regulation § 16.505 doesn’t provide for specific requirements when discussing task orders.  However, when agencies engage in exchanges in task order competitions, “They must be fair and not misleading.”  Additionally, agencies may not frame discussion questions in a way that misinforms the offeror about the agency’s concern or fails to address the agency’s actual concerns.  Agencies are prohibited from discussion and conduct which favors one offeror over another.  In this case, both CDWG and AT&T had proposals which included previously selected carriers.  While CDWG was asked about potential bias, and addressed that concern in their revised response, AT&T was not asked about bias in their approach.  Consequently, they did not address it at the same level of detail in their revised response.  AT&T was then judged lacking or failing to address carrier selection bias.

Because the discussions were unequal and misleading, the GAO sustained the protest.

Technical Evaluation

Given the lack of adequate documentation, reliance on the “risk” of potential bias was unwarranted and unreasonable.  Further, the reliance on a representation of a significant strength based on CDWG’s selected mobile device, without adequate documentation, was improper.

Protest Sustained

The GAO found the evaluation was flawed, and AT&T was prejudiced by the flawed evaluation.  Competition should be reopened, with discussions and proper documentation of the subsequent evaluation.

Share

Related Posts

M&A = “More and Adequate” Agency Records

March 21, 2022

Matter of WRG Fire Training Simulation Systems, Inc.

January 12, 2022

Matter of Marquis Solutions, LLC

December 6, 2021

Matter of: PAE National Security Solutions, LLC

July 22, 2021

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