• 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 Patriot Defense Group, LLC

  • By Lewis Rhodes
  • September 4, 2020
  • Adequately Written ProposalProposal DetailProposal StandardsProposals
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Patriot Defense Group, LLC

Agency: Department of the Air Force
Disposition: Protest Denied
Decided: August 5, 2020
Keywords: Proposal Standards; Adequately Written Proposal; Proposals; Proposal Detail
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
An offeror is responsible for submitting an adequately written proposal, and supplementation submitted during the course of a protest to bolster an inadequate proposal fails to provide a basis to question the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as it was submitted.

Summary of Facts

Patriot Defense Group, LLC, a small business, protests its non-selection for a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under RFP No. H92400-19-R-0003, which was issued by the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), for subject matter expertise and knowledge-based services in support of USSOCOM’s enterprise requirements for U.S.-
based and globally-aligned Special Operations Forces missions. The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside on June 14, 2019.

Offerors were required to submit a minimum of three past performance information
sheets for contracts which were relevant to demonstrating the offeror’s ability to perform
the work set forth in the solicitation. The RFP instructed offerors to include rationale supporting the assertion of relevance and describe in detail how the past performance on each contract applies to the stated relevancy criteria.

Patriot submitted three past performance references and self-assessed each of its references as very relevant. However, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) found that it could not substantiate Patriot’s self-assessment and rated the references less favorably than Patriot’s self-assessment. The SSEB assigned an unknown confidence rating for one of the references submitted, because there were no contractor performance assessment reports available and the designated points of contact did not return any questionnaires. Based on the assessed relevancy and quality of Patriot’s past performance, the SSEB evaluated Patriot’s past performance as warranting a limited confidence assessment overall. Award was made to 46 qualifying offerors, but not Patriot. Patriot filed this protest with GAO.

Basis of Protest

Patriot challenges the Air Force’s evaluation of the relevancy of its past performance references, arguing that if the agency properly found both references to be very relevant, then Patriot would have received an award. Patriot further argues that its proposal was sufficiently detailed to support its self-assessment of the relevancy of its references, and the agency failed to reasonably evaluate the information in the proposal. The Air Force argues that notwithstanding the RFP’s clear instructions to offerors to substantiate their relevancy assertions, Patriot’s proposal failed to provide any meaningful support for its assessments.

Protest Dismissed

GAO explained that “in reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of an offeror’s proposal, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals; rather, our Office examines the record to determine
whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable, and in accordance with solicitation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.” GAO further noted that in a negotiated procurement, it is an offeror’s responsibility “to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation and allows a meaningful review by the procuring agency.”

GAO explained that Patriot’s self-assigned ratings in its proposal do not identify the actual number of contracted personnel for either reference. The RFP specifies in numerous places that offerors must provide sufficient substantiation in their proposals. Patriot argues that certain excerpts from its proposal were sufficient for the agency to assess the number of contracted personnel for each reference. GAO noted that this position is effectively that the agency should have inferred the number of contracted personnel from various general statements in the proposal. However, GAO determined that “Patriot’s arguments are neither consistent with the RFP’s specific requirements for offerors to include supporting rationales and descriptions, nor our established line of decisions affirming an offeror’s responsibility to prepare an adequately written proposal.”

GAO further determined that even if it were to impose on the agency the burden to decipher the contents of this proposal, there is no basis to conclude that the agency reasonably could
have deduced the number of contracted personnel involved in Patriot’s prior efforts. Patriot’s passing references to the personnel involved in performing the requirement raise more questions. GAO concluded that absent reasonable specificity in the protester’s proposal substantiating the number of contracted personnel on each reference, the agency’s evaluation that Patriot failed to substantiate its claims was reasonable.

GAO also noted that “to the extent Patriot’s protest submissions attempt to more clearly articulate the relevancy of its past performance references,” its review is limited to Patriot’s
proposal, as submitted. Patriot’s inclusion of clarifying information in its protest “provides no basis to question the agency’s contemporaneous evaluation of the protester’s proposal as submitted.”

The GAO denied the protest on this basis.

Share

Related Posts

No Really… The Agency’s Server Ate my Proposal

April 4, 2022

“Better Late Than Never?”… Not So Much for Bid Protests

March 14, 2022

Matter of: Equitus Corporation

July 22, 2021

Matter of AECOM Management Services, Inc.

July 7, 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
  • 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