• 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

In the Matter of L3 Unidyne, Inc.

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • November 3, 2017
  • Evaluation CriteriaProposal Evaluation
  • 0 Comments

Agency: Department of the Navy

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Decided: October 16, 2017

Keywords:

Evaluation Criteria, Proposal Evaluation

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

Agencies are bound not only by the terms and conditions outlined in the RFP, but also federal law.  Additionally, an agency’s failure to document the rationale for decisions may result in protests being sustained.

Summary of Facts

Companies currently holding contracts under the Navy’s Seaport – E indefinite-delivery, indefinite- quantity multiple award program were issued an RFP seeking services in connection with operation of a towed array facility.  The RFP was offered on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-reimbursement task order.

According to the RFP, the evaluation of proposals would consider cost and non- cost factors.  The non-cost factors included technical capability, past performance, and small business participation.  Additionally, a cost realism evaluation was anticipated, with the possibility of additional cost analyses in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15-404-1.

The agency received several proposals, including proposals from L3 Unidyne, Inc. (L3) and awardee Leidos.  After evaluation, only Leidos was deemed to have submitted a technically acceptable proposal.  Consequently, the agency issued the task order to Leidos.

Basis for Protest

L3 offers three general categories of protest.  First, they object to Leidos’ employment terms and the agency’s failure to consider the consequences of the terms.  Second, they argue their proposal was not evaluated in accordance with the terms of the contract. Third, L3 disputes the agency’s treatment of the cost evaluation of Leidos.

Leidos Binding Arbitration Agreements

In their proposal, Leidos submitted letters of intent for proposed key employees.  The letters indicated employees would be required to enter into binding arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment.  However, federal law prohibits conditional employment based on an agreement to submit to arbitration for certain types of employment claims.  This can be waived, but only if the determination is made the waiver is necessary to avoid harm to national security interests.  Further, the waiver must be made public no less than 15 business days before the contract is awarded.

L3 Proposal Evaluation

L3 objects to the evaluation of their proposal.  For example, L3 argues it was unreasonable for the agency to assign a deficiency to their proposal because one government property manager did not live in the area.  This was a minor, non-key employee for a position not identified in the RFP.  Further, the employee had been using the same person under the incumbent contract, and prior performance assessments of this system on the predecessor contract was described as “extremely accurate and well maintained.”  The agency maintained the evaluation was reasonable.

L3 also argued the agency only evaluated staffing profiles under one task, despite the fact 11 tasks were identified in the RFP.  L3 argues this is unreasonable, in light of the RFP’s statement the agency would evaluate the proposed staffing mix to determine how well the overall mix of personnel was suited.  The Agency claimed to have evaluated all proposed staffing, however, no record supports that claim.

Cost Evaluation of Leidos

The cost realism evaluation of Leidos proposal did not consider the variances from the RFP’s estimated levels of effort and staffing profile.  The agency agrees they did not take these considerations into account.  The agency argued staffing was evaluated under the technical evaluation factor and therefore did not need to be considered in evaluation cost realism.

Protest Sustained

Leidos Binding Arbitration Agreements

No evidence in the record establishes the agency gave meaningful consideration to whether Leidos arbitration requirements complied with the statutory limitations on arbitration.  In fact, no evidence exists that the agency even had a copy of the arbitration agreement.  Consequently, the agency could not possibly have considered whether the agreement complied.  As such, the agency’s award was improper.

L3 Proposal Evaluation

Given the totality of circumstances, the agency has not provided information about how the L3 “employee deficiency” amounts to a “material failure” that increases the likelihood of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.  Instead, the agency evaluation concluded this without explanation.  The GAO found this unreasonable.

The GAO first notes where the claim is undocumented, there is a risk there will be inadequate supporting information.  Given the record at hand, where nothing supports the agency’s claim, the protest is sustained on the ground there was not proper evaluation.

Cost Evaluation of Leidos

The GAO notes the technical evaluation and cost realism evaluation must be consistent with each other and withstand logical scrutiny in the context of a cost reimbursement contract.

Recommendation

The GAO recommends first the agency determine whether the Leidos proposal complies with the requirements of arbitration agreements.  Second, the agency re-evaluate proposals.

Protest sustained.

Tagged

evaluation criteriaProposal Evaluation

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Science Applications International Corporation

February 28, 2022

Matter of WRG Fire Training Simulation Systems, Inc.

January 12, 2022

Matter of: PAE National Security Solutions, LLC

July 22, 2021

Matter of Patronus Systems, Inc.

December 3, 2020

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