• 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

No LPTA Unless They Say.

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • September 14, 2022
  • Best ValueLowest Price Technically AcceptablePrice Evaluation
  • 0 Comments

Matter of AT&T Mobility LLC

Decided: May 10, 2022

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Keywords: Best Value, Price Evaluation, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

 

Protest Insight

This case is another recent example of GAO sustaining an offeror’s protest, despite being highly deferential to agency evaluations. Here, the protestor was able to demonstrate prejudice from the agency’s errors in price evaluation and the incorrect use of a lowest-priced technically acceptable basis. GAO ultimately sustained the protestor’s challenges, because the record established that the agency evaluated proposals in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation and failed to qualitatively compare proposals. If you were involved in a bid and feel the agency similarly evaluated in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation, you may have similar grounds for a protest.

Companies should thoroughly evaluate the potential for success with any protest situation. The time, expense, and negative consequences associated with challenging your Government customer warrants a strategic evaluation between your executive leadership, capture, proposal, and legal teams.  General Counsel has the experience and drive to assist clients with assessing award decisions, developing legal courses of action, filing either as an unsuccessful bid protestor or the awardee intervenor, litigating the protest, and developing post-decision lessons learned for more effective future business development practices.

Summary of Facts

AT&T Mobility LLC (AT&T) protests the issuance of a federal supply schedule (FSS) order to Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Verizon), under RFP No. 70US0921R70090027, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service for cellular communications services and equipment. The solicitation was issued to FSS contract holders on March 19, 2021 and contemplated issuance of a single, hybrid fixed-price and time-and-materials order for a 1-year base period, which included a 6-month transition, and four 1-year option periods.

The solicitation initially established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and 4 non-price factors. However, The agency revised the solicitation to remove the pass/fail matrix evaluation factor, to fold consideration of an offeror’s ability to meet the statement of work’s core requirements into the evaluation under the technical factor, and to add weights to the non-price evaluation factors. The final version of the solicitation established that the source selection would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and 3 weighted non-price factors.

Entering into  “communication exchanges” the evaluators assigned the final proposals of both AT&T and Verizon ratings of satisfactory under each of the non-price factors, as well as “overall” ratings of satisfactory. The agency calculated AT&T’s total evaluated price to be $19,998,857 and Verizon’s total evaluated price to be $17,928,540. The contracting officer, who served as the source selection official (SSO), reviewed the evaluators’ findings and “did not see any discriminators in AT&T’s proposal which would be worth the price premium” and accepted “the lowest priced proposal submitted by Verizon as the overall best value for the Government.” AT&T filed this protest.

Basis of Protest

AT&T asserts the agency improperly converted the source selection into a lowest-priced, technically acceptable procurement and the evaluation was inconsistent with the solicitation.

Protest Sustained

Source Selection Decision

GAO stated that while “an agency is not obligated to extensively document every consideration made in its source selection decision, it is required to adequately explain and document the basis for its determination” or it bears the risk that GAO may be unable to determine whether the decision was proper. GAO stressed that agencies may not base their selection decisions on adjectival ratings alone, as such ratings serve only as guides to intelligent decision-making. Selection officials must explain the basis for finding that proposals are technically equivalent.

If a selection official reasonably regards proposals as being essentially equivalent technically, then price properly may become the determining factor in making award, and it is not necessary to perform a price/technical tradeoff. However, GAO noted that first the agency must reasonably determine that the two proposals are technically equivalent based on a documented qualitative assessment of proposals.

GAO concluded that the contemporaneous record “does not demonstrate that the SSO meaningfully looked behind the adjectival ratings to consider the qualitative value of the proposals in determining that they were technically equivalent.” GAO further explained that “agencies cannot announce in a solicitation an evaluation scheme that provides for a tradeoff analysis with the technical factors being considered more important than price and then disregard the stated evaluation scheme and make award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.” Thus, GAO sustained AT&T’s challenge to the source selection decision.

Price Evaluation

GAO explained that “competitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” GAO will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency’s actions and that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award.

GAO noted that “had the agency’s improper price evaluation been the only error reflected in the record, it may have been possible to conclude that the protester failed to demonstrate how it was competitively prejudiced,” but the record also reflects errors in the agency’s source selection decision. GAO explained that the record indicates that, “in essence, the agency conducted the procurement on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, contrary to the terms of solicitation.” Thus, GAO held it couldn’t conclude that, had the agency evaluated proposals consistent with the terms of the solicitation and performed a proper tradeoff analysis, that the SSO would have made the same selection decision. GAO indicated that “doubts regarding prejudice” are resolved in favor of a protester. Thus, GAO sustained AT&T’s challenge to the agency’s price evaluation.

Our Government Contracts Practice Group has extensive experience in 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 Craig Lawless, Senior Counsel in our Government Contracts practice area at General Counsel, P.C., 703-266-1865.

 

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

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