• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-202-770-2939

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Mistakes Are Not Always Correctable

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • August 21, 2013
  • Blog Articles
  • 0 Comments

Bid Protest Weekly Newsletter by Bryan R. King, Attorney, General Counsel PC

Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013, 6:55pm EST

ST Net, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-223C, August 13, 2013
Albert Einstein is quoted as saying “anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.” Well that’s a nice sentiment, but for contractors submitting an offer on a federal procurement, it would probably be wiser to forget about trying something new with their offer, and try to avoid mistakes altogether. Because in government contracting, you won’t always get an opportunity to correct a mistake, and this could lead to a costly result.

This principle is demonstrated by ST Net v. United States, a recent bid protest decision by the Court of Federal Claims. In ST Net, the Department of Homeland Security issued a solicitation for the award of a five-year IDIQ contract with a cost ceiling of $3 billion. DHS was seeking to make multiple awards to various small businesses to provide a variety of commercially-available IT products and services. The solicitation required offerors to provide brand/model names, ceiling prices, and discount rates for approximately 70 different types of IT equipment. The solicitation also informed offerors that DHS intended to make an award without discussions.

DHS received over 240 proposals, including a proposal from the protester, ST Net. However, ST Net failed to include the brand/model name, ceiling price, and discount rate for two of the required products. During its evaluation of ST Net’s proposal, DHS determined that because ST Net failed to provide all of the information required by the solicitation, ST Net’s proposal was fundamentally flawed. As a result, ST Net was not recommended for award.

ST Net filed a protest in the Court of Federal Claims, arguing that DHS had an affirmative duty to communicate with ST Net and provide it with an opportunity to revise its offer before being disqualified. ST Net based this argument on two basic principles of government contracting: that contracting officers are required to treat offerors fairly, and that contracting officers have discretion to allow offerors to correct minor errors in proposals. ST Net argued that these two principles, along with the fact that the errors in its proposal were both minor and obvious, meant that it was improper for DHS to disqualify ST Net without first giving it an opportunity to correct its mistakes.

The Court rejected ST Net’s arguments, and denied the protest. Specifically, the Court found that where an agency conducts a negotiated procurement and expressly informs offerors that it intends to make an award without discussions, the agency is under no affirmative duty to allow an offeror to correct a material mistake in its proposal. And in this case, the record sufficiently demonstrated to the Court that ST Net’s errors were not minor or clerical. Rather, correcting ST Net’s mistakes would have led to an increase in its proposed price of approximately 7%. Thus, the Court found that DHS’s decision to disqualify ST Net’s proposal without first allowing ST Net to correct its mistakes was both lawful and reasonable.

While the decision in this case seemed to hinge on the fact the solicitation specifically warned offerors that the agency intended to make an award without discussions, this is a lesson applicable to basically any solicitation. Contracting officers generally have discretion to allow offerors to correct minor mistakes, but just because they can, doesn’t mean they always will, or even should, allow for such a correction. Failing to include required information, particularly line-item pricing information, may be minor in the sense that the amount of missing information is small. But, it could also be incredibly costly, as demonstrated by this decision—a small omission could disqualify you from a big contract opportunity.

Share

Related Posts

Agencies Must Provide an Accurate Estimate of Requirements in a Solicitation

May 29, 2014

Counting Independent Contractors As Employees Can Lead to Rejection of a Proposal

May 16, 2014

Bad Idea to Assume Agency Will Know What Proposal Was Supposed to Say

May 6, 2014

Government Contracting as a Team Sport: The Consideration of Subcontractor Experience

April 25, 2014

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Download our Bid Protest Primer FREE eBook!

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • 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
  • 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
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • 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
  • 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 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-Qualification of Offerors
  • Preaward/Postaward Requirements
  • 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
  • Proposals
  • Protest Jurisdiction
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • 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
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Uncategorized
  • 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


Visit Our
blog

Read more

Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-202-770-2939
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

Lists*

© 2018 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-202-770-2939