• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-202-770-2939

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

Matter of Vectrus Systems Corporation

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • February 23, 2017
  • Bid Protests
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Vectrus Systems Corporation

Agency: Department of the Army

Disposition: Protest Denied

Decided: December 21, 2016

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:  

The burden of compliance is upon the offerors; the evaluation of prior joint venture is unnecessary where proposed venture does not include prior venture partner, where cost realism is well documented, follow-up questions are asked re: disparities, and evaluation is reasonable.

Summary of Facts

Vectrus Systems Corporation (Vectrus) protests the issuance of a task order to URS Federal Services.  The task order sought logistics support services in Qatar and Kuwait under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) Program.  The solicitation sought to grant a best value award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order, with a base year and three (3) option years.  The RFP established a two-stage evaluation process of proposals.  

At the first stage of the evaluation, the Army established over 20 requirements in section L of the RFP, which would comprise a “strict compliance review.”  The RFP made clear that the Army would only consider proposals compliant with the requirements listed in section L and thus, only those would advance to the next stage of evaluation.  

At the second stage of the evaluation, the Army evaluated proposals under technical, past performance, and cost/price factors.  Evaluation under the technical factor relied upon an acceptable/unacceptable determination.  Under past performance, the Army evaluated proposals using a qualitative assessment with confidence ratings.  Cost/price evaluations considered both price reasonableness and cost realism.

The Army received 6 proposals.  Of those, 4 proposals met the initial strict compliance review, including Vectrus, and URS Federal.

Vectrus filed a protest which challenged each area of the Army’s evaluation of proposals.

Basis for the Protest

  1. Vectrus challenged the Army’s determination that URS Federal met the strict compliance review criteria.  Specifically, Vectrus asserted that URS Federal’s proposal violated the labor laws of Kuwait.
  2. Vectrus challenged the Army’s past performance evaluation on three prongs:
    1. The Army should have given Vectrus more favorable consideration;
    2. The Army’s evaluation of the past performance of 2 other bidders was unequal and disparate in relation to its evaluation of Vectrus;
    3. The Army unreasonably ignored URS Federal’s parent company’s past performance problems.
  3. Vectrus challenged the Army’s cost realism analysis, arguing that URS Federal’s proposal was 59 percent below the independent government cost estimate and that this is attributable to the proposal’s flawed methodology and violations of labor laws.  

 

General Standard of Review

Strict Compliance Review

  1. URS Federal provided an explanation of how they would comply with the labor laws of Kuwait, as well as a certification of compliance that was signed by attorneys licensed to practice law in Kuwait, as required by the RFP.  The GAO notes, “although Vectrus may have envisioned a more robust legal analysis in the plan, we see nothing objectionable in the Army’s conclusion that the plan satisfies the requirements of the RFP.”  The GAO further notes that the RFP does not require the Army to make an independent assessment of compliance with local labor laws.  Rather, the Army’s intent to place the burden of proving compliance on the offerors is clear in the RFP language.

Past Performance Review

  1. As a preliminary matter, the GAO limits past performance review to ensuring that the evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and applicable statutes.  
    1. While Vectrus argued that the Army should have considered their overall performance on a prior contract, which included improvements after initial failures to meet deadlines, the GAO notes that “an agency is not required to ignore instances of negative past performance.”  Further, the RFP at issue specifically noted that significant past problems were subject to consideration.
    2. In evaluating whether the Army engaged in disparate treatment, the GAO found that the record established considerable differences between the degree of adverse past performance, as well as the quantity of adverse past performance.  Consequently, the record supports the Army’s conclusion.
    3. Finally, the GAO rejected Vectrus’ assertion that the Army should have considered AECOM’s record.  The GAO noted that the issue is not as simple as where or not the two companies are affiliated with one another. Rather the consideration involves an evaluation of the the nature and the extent of the ”relationship between the two – –  in particular whether the workforce, management, facilities, or other resources of one may affect the contract performance by the other.”  In the case at hand, no joint venture was being proposed, thus, there was no basis for the agency to consider the past performance of any joint venture.  

Cost/Price Evaluation

  1. The GAO found that the cost realism analysis performed by the Army was reasonable and well documented.  The SSA expressly sought explanations regarding the disparity of cost between the offerors and the IGCE.  Further, as to Vectrus’ allegation that the proposal violated labor laws, the GAO reiterated that compliance with local labor laws was not part of the evaluation considerations under cost/price nor technical factors.  Additionally, the RFP did not require the Army to evaluate compliance with local labor laws.

Protest Denied

Given the forgoing evaluation, and noting Vectrus’ other arguments provide no basis to conclude any reasonable possibility of prejudice, the GAO denied the protest.

Share

Related Posts

New Procedure For Submitting Bid Protests Coming in May 2018

April 17, 2018

Matter of David Jones, CPA PC

October 13, 2017

Timely Filing in the Matter of: SageCare, Inc.; AeroSage, LLC

August 14, 2017

Competitive Range Solutions, LLC

May 4, 2017

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