• 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

Matter of Verdi Consulting, Inc.

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • May 25, 2017
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • 0 Comments

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Decided: April 26, 2017

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:  Agencies must evaluate proposals consistent with stated evaluation criteria. Agencies must document their evaluations sufficiently, such that a reviewing body understands the process utilized to come to a decision.  A failure to adequately document agency determinations may result in a sustained protest.

Summary of Facts

On May 8, 2016, HUD issued a competitive 8(a) set-aside, seeking proposals for mortgage compliance reviews, evaluation of internal controls, data analysis, and other financial operations tasks designed to identify and reduce risks to the Federal Housing Administration’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI).  This fixed price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract had a base year and four option years.  The RFP called for a best value tradeoff, considering technical approach, management plan, key personnel, past performance, and price.  According to the solicitation, the evaluation factors were of equal importance, but that non-price evaluation factors, when combined, were considered significantly more important than the price factor.  

With regard to past performance, of relevance here, where an offeror proposed a subcontractor for more than 20 percent of the value of the contract, past performance information on the subcontractor was also to be submitted.  

Six proposals were submitted, including from Verdi, the incumbent.  After submission, the contract specialist requested offerors revise their proposals and offered a revised schedule.  All offerors but Verdi completed a revised proposal.  After consideration of revised proposals, HUD awarded the contract to Falcon.

Verdi, who received evaluations of unacceptable for Management Plan and Past Performance, filed a protest.  During the course of the protest, the Agency declared their intention to seek corrective action and the protest was dismissed as academic.  As part of their corrective action, the Agency re-evaluated proposals.  This resulted in Verdi receiving a more favorable rating under Management Plan, but their evaluation of unacceptable for Past Performance remained.  Because Verdi remained ineligible for the award, the Agency did not issue a new source selection decision.

Verdi filed a second protest, challenging the Agency’s past performance evaluation, HUD’s price evaluation, and HUD’s best value tradeoff.  

Standing to Protest

The Agency first argued Verdi was not an “interested party” because Verdi was not next in line for the award.  GAO disagrees with this analysis.  This award was based on a cost/technical tradeoff basis – not a lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer.  As such, determining “best value” requires the agency to consider differences between proposals to determine relative quality.  Thus, it cannot be said Verdi would not have received the award.

Next, the Agency argues Verdi did not submit a modified proposal as requested, and thus, because the Agency could have refused to consider the proposal, Verdi does not have standing to object to the award.  GAO notes that while HUD could have rejected Verdi’s proposal for failing to submit a revised proposal, they failed to do so.  Thus, HUD effectively waived any objection they may have to this failure.  

Past Performance

When a protester challenges the evaluation of past performance and source selection, GAO reviews the evaluation and award decision to determine if the evaluation was consistent with the evaluation criteria, was reasonable, was consistent with procurement statutes and relevant case law and regulations.  Further, GAO ensures the Agency evaluation was properly documented.

HUD’s written evaluation of Verdi’s past performance was limited to the written debriefing provided to Verdi.  Nothing in the record established the Agency evaluated the past performance of Verdi’s subcontractors, as required by the RFP.  Finally, the Agency stated in the debriefing letter Verdi’s lack of access to HERMIT precludes the firm for being able to successfully perform relevant tasks.  However, nothing in the RFP required HERMIT access.  

Given these facts, GAO found HUD’s evaluation was inconsistent with the RFP terms, inadequately documented, and unreasonable.  Thus, the protest was sustained on this ground.

Price Evaluation

Verdi objected to Agency’s price evaluation, in that it appeared the agency only evaluated base year pricing.  The RFP, in contrast, stated the offeror’s total evaluated price would include consideration of the total price for all options.  Further, the RFP incorporated FAR 52.217-5, which requires including option prices in the evaluation for purposes of award.  

In considering objections to price evaluation, GAO does not substitute their judgement, rather GAO reviews the record to determine whether the evaluation and subsequent decision is reasonable, and consistent with the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation, as well as applicable laws and regulations.  

HUD’s documentation of price evaluation was extremely limited.  Further, there was nothing in the record to establish the Agency considered prices including all option periods, as required by both the relevant FAR provision and the requirements of the RFP.  As such, Verdi’s protest regarding Agency’s price evaluation is also sustained.

Best-Value Tradeoff

Finally, Verdi challenges the Agency’s best value tradeoff.  The record established the Agency had a two sentence best value tradeoff.  On its face, the evaluation is inadequate.  Further, the tradeoff, as documented, establishes the Agency only considered base year pricing.  Of concern, since the past performance and pricing evaluations were lacking, GAO notes the best value tradeoff couldn’t have possibly considered Verdi’s properly assessed situation.

Recommendation

GAO recommends HUD reevaluate all price proposals consistent with the RFP, and also reevaluate Verdi’s past performance, consistent with the decision.  All reevaluations should be adequately documented.

Tagged

evaluation criteria

Share

Related Posts

Matter of: PAE National Security Solutions, LLC

July 22, 2021

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

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
  • 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