• 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 SigNet Technologies, Inc.

  • By Lewis Rhodes
  • September 4, 2020
  • ClarificationsDiscussions
  • 0 Comments

Matter of SigNet Technologies, Inc.

Agency: Department of the Air Force
Disposition: Protest Denied
Decided: July 23, 2020
Keywords: Clarifications; Discussions
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
Clarifications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, or otherwise revise the proposal. An agency’s discretion to hold discussions or engage in clarifications is quite broad and is not generally reviewed by GAO.

Summary of Facts

SigNet Technologies, Inc. protests the award of multiple contracts under RFP No. FA8730-19-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Air Force. The RFP was issued on June 6, 2019, for contractors to implement physical and electronic security systems to protect Air Force sites, known as the Force Protection Site Security System Solutions (FPS4) program. The RFP contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts with a 5-year ordering period. Award would be made to all offerors that submit a technically acceptable proposal and offer a fair and reasonable price. The RFP also stated that the
government intended to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions, but
reserved the right to engage in clarifications. The only evaluation factor specified in the RFP was the technical factor, which had four subfactors, including the infrastructure subfactor. A proposal would be deemed technically acceptable if every technical subfactor were rated acceptable quality and low or moderate risk and would be rated based on the agency’s assessment of weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in each offeror’s technical proposal.

By the closing date, the agency received 31 proposals. SigNet’s proposal was rated as unacceptable quality and high risk, and the Air Force assessed a deficiency to the communication networking element based on a combination of significant weaknesses. The agency did not conduct discussions or engage in clarifications with SigNet on its proposal. Since SigNet’s proposal did not receive a rating of acceptable quality and low or moderate risk for all technical subfactors, SigNet was not considered a qualifying offeror and was not awarded the contract. After requesting and receiving a debriefing, SigNet filed this protest.

Basis of Protest

SigNet argues the Air Force should have sought clarification on various flaws identified in its proposal, which SigNet contends were minor or clerical. SigNet further argues that if the Air Force sought these clarifications, it would have become a qualifying offeror eligible for award of the contract. The Air Force argues that it was not required to engage in clarifications and that the technical evaluation highlighted significant weaknesses that would have required resolution through discussions, rather than clarifications.

Protest Sustained

GAO explained the difference between discussions and clarifications, which is at issue here. “Discussions occur when an agency communicates with an offeror for the purpose of
obtaining information essential to determine the acceptability of a proposal, or provides
the offeror with an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal in some material respect.”
Clarifications are “limited exchanges between the agency and offerors that may occur
when contract award without discussions is contemplated.” GAO noted that an agency “may, but is not required to, engage in clarifications that give offerors an opportunity to clarify certain
aspects of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.” Moreover, offerors have no automatic right to clarifications, and agencies have broad discretion as to whether to seek clarifications from offerors. Finally, clarifications “cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, or otherwise revise the proposal.”

GAO determined that clarifications were not appropriate to resolve the flaws identified in SigNet’s proposal. For SigNet’s proposal to become acceptable, it would need to provide “a substantial amount of required information missing from its proposal” to remedy its insufficient documentation. GAO concluded that “providing SigNet with an opportunity to correct the significant weaknesses that formed the basis of the deficiency would constitute discussions, not clarifications, because it would involve the submission of information necessary to make the proposal acceptable.”

GAO also noted that the RFP advised that the Air Force reserved the right to make award without discussions, and an agency is not required to provide an opportunity for discussions, or clarifications, where the solicitation expressly advised that the agency intended to make award without discussions. Lastly, GAO noted that an agency’s discretion to hold discussions or engage in clarifications is broad and not generally reviewed by GAO.

GAO denied the protest on this basis.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Science Applications International Corporation

February 28, 2022

Matter of: Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.

May 27, 2021

Matter of: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

June 7, 2017

George G. Sharp, Inc., B-408306, August 5, 2013

September 3, 2013

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