• 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 Dynaxys LLC

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • May 24, 2018
  • Best ValueEvaluations
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Dynaxys LLC

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Disposition: Protest Sustained In Part

Decided: April 18, 2018

Released: May 4, 2018

Keywords: Best Value, Evaluations,

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

Evaluation of proposals should be carefully reviewed to determine if strengths awarded are justified. When an agency does not evaluate approaches equally, there may be grounds for a protest.  Further, when making best value determinations, an agency must consider substantive differences between proposals and justify their tradeoff decision.

Summary of Facts

Dynaxys LLC protests the award of a support services contract to KeyBank National Association (KeyBank).  The request for proposals (RFP) indicated the award would be based on a best value tradeoff considering six non-price factors which, combined, were more important than price.  However, as the proposals became more equal in non-price factors, price became more important.

The non-price factors, in descending order of importance, included:

  • Technical approach;
  • Management plan;
  • Quality control plan;
  • Key personnel;
  • Past performance; and
  • Socioeconomic participation.

After evaluation of all proposals, the agency found only Dynaxys and KeyBank qualified for consideration for the award.  The evaluation resulted in the following findings for the relevant proposals:

Dynaxys KeyBank
Technical Approach Good Good
Management Plan Good Good
Quality Control Plan Good Good
Key Personnel Excellent Good
Past Performance Excellent Neutral
Socioeconomic Participation Excellent Marginal
Price $68,269,998 $46,729,263

The source selection authority (SSA) determined the technical superiority of Dynaxys does not justify paying a 31.55% price increase.  The SSA further found the government can obtain services “nearly as good without paying the premium price.”

Basis of Protest – Technical Approach

Dynaxys protests the award based on three factors.  First, they challenge the evaluation of proposals under the technical approach, alleging the agency did not evaluate the proposals equally.  This is particularly important where both Dynaxys and KeyBank received the same rating for this factor.  KeyBank was awarded two strengths for their technical approach. However, Dynaxys points out the two strengths awarded only establish KeyBank’s proposal met the requirements of the solicitation.  The strengths awarded were for providing multiple fields of loan servicing and providing a transition within 90 days.  Dynaxys argues these strength awards were unreasonable, in that the RFP called for both of these as minimum requirements.  HUD argued first the evaluation was reasonable, and second, even if the argument is valid, Dynaxys did not show competitive prejudice.

Basis of Protest – Best-Value Tradeoff Determination

Dynaxys protests the decision in that the agency failed to consider the substantive differences between the proposals and did not explain why their proposal did not merit a higher price.

 Protest Sustained – Technical Approach

The record fails to demonstrate how KeyBank’s proposed transition approach exceeded the minimum requirements or otherwise merited the award of two minor strengths.  Further, Dynaxys’ proposal also met these minimum requirements and they were not awarded minor strengths for this.  The record shows Dynaxys received other minor strengths, thus the technical approach exceeded the requirements in ways KeyBank did not.  The agency’s failure to consider the added benefits of Dynaxys’ proposed approach raises sufficient possibility of prejudice.

Protest Sustained – Best-Value Tradeoff Determination

While the government may select a lower priced proposal, even if it is rated lower,  when the agency determines the higher price is not justified, they must provide a tradeoff analysis to support the decision. This is particularly true where price is secondary to technical considerations.  Additionally, when a source selection decision is based on information that is inconsistent or inaccurate concerning the technical evaluation of proposals, the decision is not reasonable.

In this particular case, first, as noted above, the technical approaches of the two offerors were not identical.  Second, while the adjectival rating for both was the same for management plan and quality control plan, the balance of the factors favored Dynaxys.  The unreasonableness of the technical approach evaluation renders the source selection unreasonable.  Additionally, the agency’s source selection determination fails to provide meaningful comparison of the proposals.  There is no substantive comparison or analysis of the proposals, nor any substantive analysis of the determination the strengths of Dynaxys’ proposal do not outweigh the price premium.  The sweeping statements offered by the SSA fall far short of the requirement to justify cost/technical tradeoff decisions.

Share

Related Posts

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

February 1, 2023

Peak-a-Boo, I see You! – An Agency’s Undocumented Best Value Analysis.

February 1, 2023

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

November 17, 2022

Open Sesame! Ya Gotta Get the Agency Report and Records.

October 24, 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