• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

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

Systems Research and Applications Corporation, B-407224.3, December 17, 2012

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • January 9, 2013
  • Solicitation Requirements

Link:  GAO Decision

Protestor:  Systems Research and Applications Corporation

Agency:  Department of the Army

Disposition:  Protest Denied.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAO Digest:  

An agency reasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal under the minimum antiterrorism building standards cited in the solicitation, rather than against later revised standards that were not incorporated; the agency was not required to amend the solicitation after receiving proposals to reflect the revised standards where the agency requires the standards included in the solicitation.

General Counsel PC Highlight:  

Systems Research and Applications Corporation (SRA) protested the award to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of a contract for Enterprise Operations Security Services (EOSS II) information technology services. The RFP, issued under the GSA Alliant GWAC, provided for award on a best value basis, considering technical, management, transition, past performance and price factors. An unacceptable rating under any factor or subfactor would result in the rejection of a proposal. The contractor was to provide a primary network operations and security center (NOSC), which complied with the DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-010-01, DOD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings (2007 UFC) and included a single office space for approximately 43 DOD staff. The 2007 UFC provided that, with regards to leased or assigned space occupied by DOD staff, the UFC standards were applicable only where the DOD personnel occupy at least 25% of the net interior usable area or the area defined by the lease.

After receiving their offers, the agency requested that SRA and SAIC clarify how their proposed facility satisfied the minimum standards of the 2007 UFC. SRA responded that the UFC standards did not apply to its space because the DOD personnel would occupy less than 20% of the floor leased for the NSOC facility, and thus less than 3% of the usable space in the entire building. SAIC explained how its facility satisfied the 2007 UFC standards. After the clarifications were received, the DOD updated UFC 4-010-01 to state that the standards only applied where DOD personnel occupied at least 25% of the usable building area; the RFP was not amended to incorporate the updated UFC.

The agency found SRA’s proposal unacceptable under the NOSC facility factor, based on its failure to provide a facility which complied with the 2007 UFC minimum standards. SRA also offered the highest price of the three offers received. Although all offerors proposed to discount their Alliant contract labor rates, SAIC offered the greatest discount. To evaluate the performance risk of these discounted rates, the price evaluation team estimated offerors’ most probable cost under two scenarios: capping discounts at 20%; and applying the Alliant contract labor rates without discounts. The agency concluded the proposed prices did not present a performance risk, and the task order was issued to SAIC.

The GAO found reasonable the agency’s evaluation of proposals against the 2007 UFC rather than the 2012 UFC. It disagreed with SRA that SRA’s facility was not subject to the minimum standards of the 2007 UFC, pointing out that the agency reasonably based its assessment on the floor leased by SRA, rather than the entire building, and reasonably based its calculation on the number of contractor personnel as well as DOD employees working in the NOSC facility. The GAO also disagreed that the 2012 UFC significantly changed the agency’s requirements such that it was required to amend the solicitation.

The GAO rejected SRA’s argument that the agency improperly accepted SAIC’s expired offer, pointing out that the revival of an expired offer is acceptable where it would not compromise the integrity of the competitive procurement system. Finally, the GAO held that the agency’s price realism analysis was reasonable, recognizing the risk of low prices but concluding that they were nevertheless realistic.

Agencies are required to evaluate proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. Where a solicitation incorporates a particular external standard as the date of the solicitation, but that standard is later revised, the agency is required to adhere to the standard as stated in the solicitation. If the revised standard is so different from the original as to materially change the agency’s needs, it may be necessary to amend the solicitation. If the solicitation is not amended, prospective offerors should carefully consider whether a pre-award protest should be filed objecting to the use of the older standard.

 

Share

Related Posts

In the Matter of: CR/ZWS LLC

November 3, 2017

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, B-408001, May 13, 2013

May 29, 2013

Womack Machine Supply Co., B-407990, May 3, 2013

May 15, 2013

e-Management, B-407980; B-407980.2, May 2, 2013

May 15, 2013

Comments are closed

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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 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

+1-571-223-6845