Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: General Services Administration
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: FSS contract, Pricing a task order quote under a GSA Schedule contract
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Pricing of a task order quote must be based on existing GSA Schedule contract pricing and not on prices expected to be approved in a new GSA Schedule contract award that has not yet been awarded.
Under a request for quotations issued by the General Services Administration on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs, a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) task order was issued to Electronic Data Systems, LLC to provide information technology support services for the VA’s Computerized Patient Record System. Based on the solicitation, the successful offeror would be determined based on its initial quotation and a best value evaluation.
Perot Systems Government Services, Inc. submitted a quote that it said was based on its existing Schedule contract. It noted further that the pricing included in that quote was based on the pricing included in its new Schedule contract, which was under review by GSA and had not yet been approved. Because the proposed prices did not match the pricing in its existing GSA Schedule contract, the Perot Systems quote was excluded as being in violation of the GSA Schedule contract requirements.
The GSA requires that all quotes and accepted task orders under the GSA Schedule program must be based on existing schedule prices that are published as part of a prior GSA Schedule contract award. The existing schedule contract award affirms that the GSA has determined the listed prices to be fair and reasonable. FAR §§ 8.402(b) and 8.404(d). The only exception to this rule is that vendors may offer discounts to their existing price list. FAR § 8.404(d).
Perot’s protest specifically challenged its exclusion because the solicitation explicitly allowed vendors to propose pricing “derived from” their current FSS contract. Because its proposed pricing was “derived from” both its existing and proposed pricing, it should have been acceptable. Moreover, since most, but not all, of Perot’s pricing was lower than its existing pricing and since its proposed overall price was lower than the awardee’s price, it should not have been excluded.
GAO held that because Perot quoted prices that were not on its current FSS contract, some admittedly higher than its existing and approved pricing, its quotation was inconsistent with the solicitation’s requirements and therefore was properly excluded. Perot’s protest was denied.