• 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 VBC Commercial Services, LLC

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • November 7, 2019
  • EvaluationsProposal EvaluationSmall Business Set-Asides
  • 0 Comments

Agency: Department of the Army

Disposition: Protest Denied

Decided: July 15, 2019

Keywords:  Small Business Set-Asides, GAO Standard of Review

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: 

When a protester challenges an agency’s evaluation of proposals, the GAO’s role is not to reevaluate proposals, but, rather, to examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.

Summary of Facts 

VBC Commercial Services, LLC, a small business, submitted a proposal to the Department of the Army, but lost to Aquarius Contractors, Inc.

The Army issued an RFP on February 1, 2019, as a small business set-aside, requesting fixed price proposals to provide commercial ground maintenance services at Fort Hood, Texas. The proposals would be evaluated under three factors: technical, past performance, and price. There were three subfactors under the technical factor: staffing approach, performance management, and proposed equipment and supplies listing. The performance management subfactor required each offeror to “provide a written narrative detailing its . . . ability to effectively communicate and manage the Grounds Maintenance Service,” including an organizational chart showing the offeror’s organization structure “and how it facilitates communication and management of the contract effort.” Under the RFP, if any subfactor was unacceptable, the technical capability factor would be unacceptable and the proposal would not be considered for award.

Four offerors submitted proposals, including VBC and Aquarius. VBC’s proposal was rated “unacceptable” under each technical subfactor, including the organizational structure element for the performance management subfactor. Specifically, VBC’s proposal was rated unacceptable for the performance management subfactor because it “did not provide or demonstrate lines of communication and lines of authority for key personnel” in accordance with the Performance Work Standard. The Army awarded the contract to Aquarius and VBC filed this protest. 

Basis of Protest 

VBC protests the evaluation of its proposal under the technical evaluation’s four elements. Specifically, VBC disputes the Army’s determination that its proposal was unacceptable for not providing or demonstrating “lines of communication and lines of authority for key personnel.” VBC argues that its proposal adequately responded to the requirements by submitting an organizational chart that depicted a “hierarchy and clear lines of authority,” job descriptions, and the qualifications of relevant positions. 

VBC further argues that the Army imposed unstated evaluation criteria because the RFP did not inform offerors that they were “required to explain why individuals proposed would enable an offeror to meet the contract requirements.”

The Army argued that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the RFP, which directed each offeror to provide not just an organizational chart, but also to address the offeror’s organizational structure and how it would “facilitate[] communication and management of the contract effort.” The Army argued the RFP made clear that the proposal would be evaluated on whether the response showed that clear lines of authority existed and “demonstrated effective communication to ensure timely execution of contract requirements.” Since VBC’s proposal simply provided an organizational chart and failed to explain what, if anything, the lines in the organizational chart indicated, the Army argued the proposal failed to explain how authority would flow from the positions listed in the organizational chart and did not discuss how the positions in the chart would communicate. 

Protest Denied 

The GAO explained that “[w]here a protester challenges an agency’s evaluation of proposals, this Office’s role is not to reevaluate proposals; rather, we examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.”

The GAO determined that the record supports the Army’s evaluation of VBC’s proposal as unacceptable. Specifically, the GAO found that VBC’s proposal “did not meaningfully respond to the RFP requirement that each proposal should explain the offeror’s management structure in terms of ensuring communication, and successful management of performance.” Instead, the GAO found that VBC’s proposal was reasonably evaluated as failing to demonstrate that clear lines of authority existed or that VBC’s staff would provide effective communication to ensure timely performance of the PWS requirements. 

Although VBC also challenged the evaluation of its proposal under other subfactors, the GAO explained that it “need not consider VBC’s remaining challenges to the evaluation,” since it already determined the proposal was reasonably evaluated as unacceptable under the performance management factor and, thus, unacceptable overall and ineligible for award.” The GAO explained that “even where a protester can demonstrate that its proposal was misevaluated in particular respects, our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency’s actions; that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award.” Since VBC’s proposal was already ineligible for award since it was reasonably evaluated as unacceptable under one factor, even if the Army did unreasonably evaluate VBC on other factors, VBC wouldn’t have been prejudiced, since it couldn’t win the award anyway. The GAO denied the protest on this basis.

Tagged

DetermineExamineGAO Standard of ReviewProposal EvaluationRecordSmall Business Set-AsidesStated Evaluation Criteria

Share

Related Posts

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

No LPTA Unless They Say.

September 14, 2022

You wanted Professional, I got your professional!

August 17, 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