• 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 Marquis Solutions, LLC

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • December 6, 2021
  • Best ValueDocumentation of EvaluationSource Selection Decision
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Marquis Solutions, LLC

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Decided: September 14, 2021

Keywords: Best-Value Tradeoff Basis, Documentation of Evaluation; Source Selection Decision

General Counsel, P.C. Protest Insight

This protest is notable because it showcases that, although the GAO is highly deferential to Agency evaluations, the GAO does find unreasonable evaluations.  Here, GAO found the VA’s evaluations unreasonable, in part because competitors were not treated fairly and equally, which resulted in inconsistent evaluations. Additionally, GAO found the evaluations were not sufficiently documented to allow for an understanding of the bases for their findings. If you were involved in a bid and feel the agency similarly failed to evaluate competitors equally or document its findings, you may have similar grounds for a protest.

Summary of Facts 

Marquis Solutions, LLC (“Marquis”) protests the award of a contract to FG Management Group, LLC (“FG”) under RFQ No. 36C24220Q0977, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA” or “agency”) for medical courier services in the New York metropolitan area.

The RFQ contemplated the award on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and four 1-year options. Firms were advised that the agency would evaluate quotations considering the price and two non-price factors: (1) technical capability, and (2) management, certification, and training. The technical capability factor included two subfactors, performance capability and technical experience.

The VA received a total of five quotations and forwarded redacted versions of the quotations to an evaluation team that reviewed them for consideration under the performance capability subfactor. After reviewing the redacted quotations, the VA assigned an overall rating of outstanding to FG’s quotation, a rating of acceptable to the quotation submitted by Company A, and a rating of unacceptable to Marquis’ quotation. Ultimately, the VA made an award to FG even though the quoted price was higher than the price offered by Company A.

Basis of Protest 

Marquis argues that the VA misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision. Specifically, Marquis argues that the VA failed meaningfully to evaluate its quotation and also

evaluated its quotation disparately in comparison to the evaluation of the FG quotation. Marquis asserts that its proposal offered a detailed description of how it intended to meet the agency’s requirements, and also offered many of the same features identified by the agency as favorable features in the FG quotation. 

Protest Sustained

GAO noted that when reviewing protests of an agency’s evaluation and source selection decision, it “will not reevaluate proposals or quotations;” but, instead, “review the record to determine whether the evaluation and source selection decision are reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and applicable procurement laws and regulations.” GAO also stated that “an agency’s evaluation of proposals or quotations, and the source selection decision, should be documented in sufficient detail” to allow GAO to review the merits of a protest. 

GAO explained that, here, the RFQ “did not include particularly detailed instructions or information relating to how firms were to prepare the technical capability portion of their quotations.” Additionally, when noting their concerns with Marquis’ quotation, the evaluators made vague and conclusory findings and “failed to explain in any meaningful way the underlying rationale for their findings.” GAO specifically noted that “the evaluators did not explain, or even provide examples of, what particular details were lacking from the Marquis quotation.” 

GAO also found that the evaluators failed to criticize the FG quotation for deficiencies similar to those noted in Marquis’ quotation, and the VA assigned significant strengths and strengths to the FG Management quotation for features that were also offered by Marquis in its quotation, without an explanation for these disparate conclusions. 

GAO concluded that “the record here does not support a conclusion that the agency performed a meaningful evaluation of the Marquis quotation. Further, the agency has not explained the apparent inconsistencies in its evaluation of the two quotations.” GAO stated that when an agency “elects to perform an evaluation that assesses the comparative merits of competing quotations, it still is required to treat the competitors fairly and equally, and to sufficiently document its evaluation conclusions.” 

GAO held that the VA’s evaluation quotations were unreasonable and the conclusions relating to the Marquis quotation reflect a fundamental failure to meaningfully evaluate it. GAO sustained the protest on this basis and recommended that the agency reevaluate quotations and make a new source selection decision that is consistent with GAO’s decision.

Our Government Contracts Practice Group has extensive experience in the area of government contract law, helping clients solve their government contract problems relating to the award or performance of a federal government contract, including bid protests, contract claims, small business concerns, and teaming and subcontractor relations. If you need more guidance or information, contact the Government Contracts law experts at General Counsel, PC today at 703-266-1865.

Tagged

Best-Value Tradeoff BasisDocumentation of Evaluation; GAO Bid Protest Review; MisevaluatedProposal EvaluationUnreasonable Source Selection

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