• 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 Deloitte Consulting LLP

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • April 22, 2020
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Deloitte Consulting LLP

Agency: Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Disposition: Protest Sustained
Decided: March 23, 2020
Keywords: Material Solicitation Terms
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: A proposal that takes exception to a solicitation’s material terms and conditions (price, quantity, quality, or delivery of the goods or services being provided) should be considered unacceptable and cannot form the basis for an award.

Summary of Facts

Deloitte Consulting LLP protests the issuance of a task order to Grant Thornton LLP by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, under BPA call request No. ARC-511003-19-0001, issued for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is seeking an expansion of its utilization of the OneStream XF2 software solution for its budget formulation requirements. The Bureau issued the solicitation on July 26, 2019 and anticipated the issuance of a fixed-price BPA task order with a 13-month period of performance.

Under the solicitation, proposals would be evaluated on the basis of price; demonstrated knowledge and experience/past performance; expertise of proposed consulting team; and method and approach. The Bureau received responses from Deloitte and Grant Thornton.

The initial technical evaluation team (TET) determined that Deloitte’s quotation “had the higher technical evaluation score” and merited award, despite its higher quoted price.

The Bureau issued the task order to Deloitte on September 6 and Grant Thornton filed a protest challenging the award. On September 27, the Bureau advised GAO that it would take corrective action by reevaluating quotations and making a new award decision. The Bureau convened a new TET and requested and received additional information from both vendors regarding their past performance references. The TET then recommended award to Grant Thornton, finding that while Deloitte had the higher technical evaluation score, the difference in score did not warrant paying more than twice the price proposed by Grant Thornton.

The contracting officer stated that while the original award decision found that “Grant Thornton’s response represented a much higher risk of not meeting the required schedule with the proposed level of effort and labor mix,” the reevaluation of quotations by the TET found that Grant Thornton would be able to make a complete on-time delivery. Grant Thornton’s quotation was selected for award and this protest followed.

Basis of Protest

Deloitte’s protest made several arguments, but the most interesting one was that the award to Grant Thornton was improper because Grant Thornton’s quotation took exception to material solicitation terms and conditions. The Bureau argued that because Deloitte’s quotation also contained assumptions that took exception to material solicitation terms, Grant Thornton couldn’t have been prejudiced.

Protest Sustained

GAO explained that a proposal or quotation that takes exception to a solicitation’s material requirements should be considered unacceptable and may not form the basis for an award. Material terms are terms which affect the price, quantity, quality, or delivery of the goods or services being provided. GAO further explained that when determining the technical acceptability of a proposal or quotation, an agency may not accept at face value a promise to meet a material requirement when there is significant countervailing evidence to the contrary. Moreover, a proposal or quotation that contains an ambiguity as to whether the vendor will comply with a material requirement of the solicitation renders the proposal or quotation unacceptable.

Here, the solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate vendors’ technical approach and methodology, including assumptions, and instructed vendors to address the tasks and explain the approach for handling each one. The PWS stated the period of performance would be thirteen months and would take place in three sequential phases.

Grant Thornton’s revised quotation contained two assumptions indicating that although Grant Thornton will make a “concerted effort” to perform the required tasks, it may elect to move the performance to a later warranty period or an undefined “future phase.” GAO found that the two assumptions in Grant Thornton’s quotation take exception to the material terms of the PWS – namely when the services would be delivered. Grant Thornton’s assumptions created ambiguity as to when the future phase would occur and whether it would take place outside the 13-month performance period. 

GAO disagreed with the Bureau’s argument that Deloitte also took exceptions to material terms. Instead, GAO determined that those exceptions addressed the possibility of out-of-scope changes to the PWS requirements. Specifically, those assumptions stated that Deloitte would work with the government to negotiate changes to the task order if the government required a change in scope or schedule. In contrast, the assumptions in Grant Thornton’s quotation stated that the vendor may elect to perform the PWS tasks on a schedule other than what is set forth in the PWS.

GAO concluded that the Bureau improperly issued the task order to Grant Thornton because of the exception to the solicitation’s requirement to meet the PWS’s stated schedule. Since the agency cannot issue the task order to Grant Thornton based on a quotation that takes exception to material solicitation terms, and Deloitte was the only other vendor that is eligible for award, GAO concluded that Deloitte was prejudiced by the agency’s error. 

GAO sustained the protest on this basis.

Tagged

Deloitte LLPDepartment of TransportationDepartment of Veterans AffairsSole-Source AwardSolicitation RequirementsSource

Share

Related Posts

Read the Requirement, Answer the Requirement!

October 24, 2022

Matter of Meridian Knowledge Solutions, LLC

March 7, 2022

Matter of IT Objects, LLC

February 7, 2020

General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., B-406965, B-406965.2, October 9, 2012

October 24, 2012

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