• 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

Matter of IT Objects, LLC

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • February 7, 2020
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • 0 Comments

Agency: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Decided: January 2, 2020

Keywords: Material Solicitation Terms

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: A requirement for letters of commitment from key personnel generally constitutes a material solicitation requirement and failure of an awardee to comply with a material solicitation requirement may result in a sustained protest by the protester.

Summary of Facts 

IT Objects, LLC (ITO) protests the award of a contract to Ahtna RDI, JV, LLC (ARJV) under RFP No. 1305M319RNFFS0008, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for information technology services for the Alaska Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The agency issued the solicitation on May 23, 2019, as a small business set-aside. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, with non-price evaluation factors (technical capability, staffing and management plan, and past performance) significantly more important than price. 

Under the RFP, proposals were expected to conform to solicitation provisions and technical proposals were to address the requirements set forth in the non-price factors. Specifically, under the staffing and management plan factor, offerors were to propose key personnel with resumes demonstrating related experience and letters of commitment. The RFP provided that consent from the Contracting Officer was required before making key personnel substitutions. NOAA received five proposals, including offers from ITO and ARJV, and determined that ARJV’s proposal was the best value. NOAA made award to ARJV and ITO protested the award.

Basis of Protest 

ITO alleged that ARJV’s proposal failed to comply with a material solicitation requirement and should have been deemed unacceptable because it did not include a letter of commitment for the individual proposed for one of the project’s positions. NOAA argued that ARJV’s proposal included a teaming agreement with the company owned by the individual proposed for the relevant position and that this teaming agreement was a reasonable substitute for a letter of commitment.

Protest Sustained

The GAO concluded that since the proposal did not include a letter of commitment from one of the proposed individuals, ARJV’s proposal failed to comply with a material solicitation requirement, and the award was improper. The GAO explained that it is a “fundamental principle that an agency must evaluate proposals consistent with the terms of the solicitation” and the GAO will question an agency’s evaluation “where it is unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria, or undocumented.” A proposal that fails to conform to the material requirements and conditions of the solicitation should be considered unacceptable. A requirement for letters of commitment from key personnel generally constitutes a material solicitation requirement. Here, offerors were required to provide resumes and letters of commitment for proposed key personnel and this requirement was a material solicitation requirement. ARJV did not provide a letter of commitment for personnel for one of the positions.

The GAO found “no support” for the argument that the teaming agreement was a reasonable substitute for a letter of commitment. The GAO considered the fact that the record contained no evidence that at the time of its evaluation and award decision, NOAA considered the teaming agreement as a substitute for a letter of commitment. Rather, it appears at the time of award decision, the agency did not notice that ARJV’s proposal failed to include a letter of commitment, since evaluators noted that the proposal included “commitment letters for all key personnel.” The GAO also considered that there was nothing in the teaming agreement that identifies any particular employee for a key personnel position and only provided that the company would serve as a subcontractor.

The GAO determined that “because ARJV’s proposal failed to comply with the material solicitation requirements for a letter of commitment for each key position; because the record provides no support for the contention that, at the time of its evaluation and award decision, the agency concluded that the teaming agreement . . . would serve as a reasonable substitute for the necessary letter; and because there is no evidence of any commitment for a key

position in the teaming agreement” NOAA’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical proposal was unreasonable. The GAO also found that ITO was prejudiced by this evaluation and recommended that NOAA conduct and document a new evaluation of the awardee’s proposal and prepare a new source selection decision, or take other steps permitted under the regulations.

The GAO sustained the protest on this basis.

Tagged

Material Solicitation Requirement

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Meridian Knowledge Solutions, LLC

March 7, 2022

Matter of Deloitte Consulting LLP

April 22, 2020

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

October 24, 2012

AC4S, Inc., B-404811.2, May 25, 2011

June 22, 2011

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