• 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: Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • November 30, 2017
  • Bid Protest DecisionsEvaluation CriteriaProposal EvaluationSource Selection Decision
  • 0 Comments

Matter of: Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC

Agency: Department of the Navy

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Keywords:  Evaluation Criteria; Proposal Evaluation; Source Selection Decision

Decided: January 18, 2017

Released: November 20, 2017

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:   Proposal evaluation and source selection decisions must be consistent between offerors.  When the record shows disparate evaluation and the protester is disadvantaged, a protest may be sustained.

Summary of Facts

This is the third protest regarding this particular acquisition.  Flour originally protested the agency’s evaluation of proposals and conduct during discussions in 2015.  After the agency reopened discussions, they awarded the contract to DZSP a second time.  A subsequent protest led to an outcome prediction alternative dispute resolution procedure at the request of the Navy.  Following this, the Navy indicated their intent to take corrective action, which led to dismissal of the second protest in March of 2016.  The Navy subsequently engaged in limited discussions and evaluated revised proposals.  The agency selected DZSP for a third time.  Fluor protested for a third time.

The RFP was for base operations support services on the island of Guam.  The award was for a cost reimbursement contract with a 12-month base period, four 1-year option periods, and three 1-year award option periods.  The award was to be made on a best value basis, considering cost and non-cost factors.  The non-cost factors included past performance, occupational safety, staffing and resources, technical approach, and small business utilization.

Both firms submitted revised proposals after the Navy indicated they would take corrective action.  The agency made no significant changes to the non-cost proposals, where Fluor received a higher rating than DZSP.  Despite Fluor’s technically superior rating, the award was again made to DZSP, based on a $2.6 million savings.

DZSP’s proposal anticipated replacing all current workers over the life of the contract at an undisclosed percentage per year.  Further, DZSP explained they would hire new workers at a lower rate of pay. Fluor’s plan, on the other hand, anticipated retaining 95 percent of incumbent staff.

Basis for Protest

Fluor argues the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  The RFP called for an evaluation of whether an offeror demonstrates the “ability to recruit and retain qualified local workforce and key personnel/managers.”

In evaluating Fluor’s proposal, the Navy expressed concern about Fluor’s ability to retain incumbent workers at the wage rates they proposed.  In fact, the evaluators suggested the lower rates could impact both morale and retention.  Consequently, the evaluators questioned Fluor’s ability to meet their proposed 95 % retention rate.

In evaluating DZSP’s proposal, and their plan to replace all incumbent staff during the contract, evaluators focused on whether replacement was realistic.  Based on the age of incumbent staff, evaluators concluded the plan was realistic.  However, the source selection authority (SSA) did not appear to be aware of DZSPs plan to replace the existing work force during the life of the contract, stating, “While both proposals received Outstanding ratings for Factor C (staffing and resources), I conclude DZSP provides slightly more value because FFS’ initiative to recruit the experienced incumbent workers at lower salaries imposes some risk of loss of a portion of that workforce’s experience.”

GAO Decision

In reviewing the record, the GAO noted that the Navy criticized Fluor’s proposed approach. The Navy found that Flour’s proposal carried the risk that it would not be able to retain the incumbent work force. At the same time, the Navy failed to recognize DZSP’s approach of replacing the workforce carried comparable risk.

Considering the disparate approach to evaluating the proposals, the GAO sustained the protest and recommended that the agency reevaluate the proposals in a manner consistent with the GAO decision.

Protest Sustained

Share

Related Posts

Do You Have the Strength(s) for this Proposal? Bedda Show Me!

February 1, 2023

Please, Make My Bid Protesting Day by Not Documenting Your Award Decision.

November 17, 2022

You wanted Professional, I got your professional!

August 17, 2022

Matter of Science Applications International Corporation

February 28, 2022

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