• 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

Matter of CALNET, Inc.

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • April 11, 2017
  • Bid Protests
  • 0 Comments

Matter of CALNET, Inc. (October 28, 2016)

Agency: Department of the Navy

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Keywords: Cost realism evaluation; Best-Value Tradeoff

Decided: Agency failed to engage in appropriate cost realism evaluation and improperly relied on adjectival ratings to find equivalence among proposals.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:  The methods an agency uses to determine cost realism should be carefully evaluated to ensure the evaluation is appropriate.  Further, adjectival ratings alone should not be relied upon.

Summary of Facts

Incumbent CALNET, Inc. (CI), along with 12 others, submitted proposals to provide the Department of the Navy technical support services on a multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract based on the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order.  Firms were informed the evaluation of the proposals would be based first on organizational experience, and less important, past performance.  These two non-cost evaluation considerations were significantly more important than cost.  However, the RFP indicated as the proposals became more equal under the non-cost factors, the cost factor would become more important.  

The RFP included 13 labor categories.  Offerors were to submit direct and indirect costs for each labor category.  Of essential importance to this solicitation, there was no requirement for technical solutions.  This solicitation purely sought labor categories.

In evaluating non-cost factors, both CI, and awardee Universal Consulting Services, Inc. (UCS) received identical adjectival ratings.  However, CI was ranked second, and UCS ranked fourth overall under the non-cost factors.  In evaluating cost, the agency found CI’s costs to be realistic.  The agency made a minor adjustment to UCS’ proposed costs, after identifying a calculation error by UCS.

After the evaluation, the agency found UCS’ proposal equivalent to CI, and thus, due to a lower cost, made the award to UCS as the best value to the government.  

Basis for the Protest

CI challenges both the propriety of the cost realism evaluation and the reasonableness of the source selection decision.  

Cost Realism Evaluation

To evaluate the cost realism of the proposal, the agency gathered information about identical labor categories from 22 other contracts.  This information was used to create a range of hourly rates for each labor category, identifying a highest and lowest fully burdened rate for each category.  The agency then reviewed the proposed direct labor rates provided by the offerors to determine whether the proposed rates fell within the expected range.

Protester points out several problems with the approach of the agency.  They include:

  • the majority of the contracts relied upon were fixed price contracts;
  • the contracts included contracts in parts of the country with lower cost labor markets;
  • the agency compared fully burdened rates with offerors direct rates.

The GAO notes the comparison of fully burdened rates to proposed direct rates does not provide the agency with a legitimate basis to determine whether the proposed direct rates offered are realistic so as to be able to attract and retain the desired personnel.  

The GAO also expressed criticism of the reliance on firm fixed price contracts.  First, there is no requirement that fixed price rates were subject to price realism.  Even if the prices were subject to price realism, agencies use price realism only to assess an offerors technical understanding or risk.  Agencies don’t adjust proposed prices when doing price realism.  Further, agencies are allowed to accept a below cost price.  

Finally, the GAO agrees with protester that the agency failed to perform any analysis to determine the appropriateness for reliance on rates from contracts performed in other parts of the country.

Source Selection Decision

Protester also argues the agency made an unreasonable cost/non-cost trade-off.  The facts establish that CI was ranked above UCS in the non-cost evaluation factors, with CI ranked second and UCS ranked fourth.  However, the record shows that the agency found the first four proposals were equal, based solely on the adjectival ratings, despite the different rankings.  

Protest Sustained

Because the record establishes the agency did not consider the cost realism of the elements of the proposed rates, the evaluation was unreasonable.  Further, because the rates used for comparison came from fixed price contracts, and from contracts not performed in the San Diego area, there is no basis for the Office to conclude the rates relied upon were realistic hourly rates.

Further, agencies are required to consider the underlying rationale for the adjectival ratings, not simply rely on the adjectival ratings themselves.  The record clearly establishes the agency’s finding that the four top rated proposals were equivalent was based solely on the adjectival ratings.  

For these reasons, the protest is sustained.

Share

Related Posts

GAO’s BID PROTEST – 2020 YEAR IN REVIEW

January 19, 2021

New Procedure For Submitting Bid Protests Coming in May 2018

April 17, 2018

Matter of David Jones, CPA PC

October 13, 2017

Timely Filing in the Matter of: SageCare, Inc.; AeroSage, LLC

August 14, 2017

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