• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-202-770-2939

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

Six3 Systems, Inc., B-405942.4, B-405942.8, November 2, 2012

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • November 14, 2012
  • Best ValueEvaluation Criteria

Link: GAO Decision

Protestor: Six3 Systems, Inc.

Agency: Defense Intelligence Agency

Disposition: Protest Denied.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAO Digest:

  1. Protest that agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated proposals is denied where record reflects that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation’s evaluation criteria and that differences in evaluation did not result from unequal treatment.
  2. Agency decision not to include protester’s lower-priced, marginal-rated proposal in best value tradeoff is unobjectionable where solicitation adequately advised offerors that marginal rating may render proposal ineligible for award.

General Counsel PC Highlight:

Six3 Systems, Inc. protested the non-selection of its proposal under an RFP for intelligence analysis support and related services. The RFP had contemplated award of multiple ID/IQ contracts on a best value basis considering multiple factors and subfactors, with the corporate security factor being evaluated on a pass/fail basis. The SSAC determined that all offerors with a rating of marginal for any non-cost/price factor or subfactor did not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the solicitation’s requirements and/or did not meet the minimum requirements of the SOW. After conducting a tradeoff analysis which did not include any offerors receiving a marginal rating, the SSAC recommended making award to eleven offerors. Six3 offered a price lower than six of the awardees, but had received a marginal rating under the PMP and personnel security subfactors.

The GAO found no reason to question the agency’s assessment of weaknesses to Six3’s proposal for lack of detail regarding quality control and management plans, pointing out that the agency informed offerors through Q&As that such plans could be attached as appendices to the proposal. It noted that Six3 clearly understood it could attach supporting documentation as appendices without exceeding the thirty page limit on the technical/management capability volume, as Six3 had attached key personnel resumes as an appendix. The GAO disagreed with Six3 that the agency’s assignment of marginal ratings under subfactors for which Six3 did not receive any significant weaknesses deviated from the solicitation’s evaluation rating definitions. It found nothing unreasonable about the agency’s conclusions that the weaknesses in Six3’s proposal, and the absence of any offsetting strengths, warranted ratings of marginal.

Six3 then alleged that the agency evaluated its proposal unequally relative to several of the awardees’ proposals under the PMP and personnel security subfactors, pointing out that, although Six3 included some of the same features as the awardees’ proposals, yet only the awardees received strengths for those features. The GAO disagreed, finding that the record showed that the proposals to which the strengths were assigned included a very high level of detail and, in some cases, additional features that Six3 did not allege were included in its own proposal. The GAO rejected the argument that the agency unreasonably determined to make award without holding discussions. Finally, the GAO found reasonable the agency’s tradeoff analysis, noting that the agency documented its determination to eliminate from consideration for award proposals receiving a rating of marginal, and that the solicitation effectively informed offerors that ratings of acceptable or higher may be necessary for a proposal to be considered for award.

Offerors should always monitor any answers received from the agency in response to questions asked by other offerors. The agency may provide essential guidance regarding proposal format that will allow offerors to better prepare their response to the solicitation. If offerors are given the opportunity to expand on certain aspects of their proposal through the inclusion of appendices, they should carefully consider whether appendices will allow them to provide greater detail about quality control plans that they would otherwise only be able to describe in partial detail in the proposal.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Dynaxys LLC

May 24, 2018

Matter of: Transworld Systems, Inc; Account Control Technology, Inc.

February 21, 2018

Matter of: Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC

November 30, 2017

Matter of: AT&T Corporation

November 20, 2017

Comments are closed

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


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*

© 2019 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