• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

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

Wyle Laboratories, Inc., B-407784, February 19, 2013

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • February 27, 2013
  • Best ValueCost RealismSource Selection DecisionTechnical EvaluationUnequal Treatment of Offerors

Link:         GAO Opinion

Agency:    Department of the Navy

Disposition:  Protest denied.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

GAO denies the protest of Wyle Laboratories, Inc., based on the issuance of a task order to Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd., under a task order request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, for program management and engineering services.

The RFP, issued on March 1, 2012, contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for a one-year base period together with two one-year options. The RFP established three evaluation factors in descending order of importance: technical; past performance; and cost.The technical factor in turn consisted of three subfactors, also in descending order of importance: understanding of the work; workforce; and management plan. Task order issuance was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the “best value” to the government, all factors considered.

Wyle’s protest raised numerous issues regarding the Navy’s evaluation of the offerors’ proposals. The protester alleges that the agency’s evaluation of Wyle’s technical proposal was improper. Wyle also argued that the Navy’s cost realism review of Imagine One’s proposal was unreasonable. The protester next contended that the Navy treated offerors disparately regarding a subcontractor’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI). Lastly, Wyle alleged that the Navy’s source selection determination was improper.

As to the first argument, GAO found the Navy’s evaluation of Wyle’s technical proposal to be reasonable. Wyle did not dispute any of the TET’s findings (i.e., strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies) regarding its proposal under the workforce and management plan subfactors. Based on the findings, the Navy evaluators reasonably concluded on each occasion that Wyle’s proposal indicated a thorough approach and understanding of the work, that the risk of unsuccessful performance was low, and that a rating of good was warranted. GAO found this to be consistent with the evaluation rating scheme set forth in the RFP. There is also no legal requirement, noted GAO, that an agency must award the highest possible rating, or the maximum point score, under an evaluation factor simply because the proposal contains strengths and/or is not evaluated as having any weaknesses. Moreover, the record demonstrated that the Navy’s evaluation of Wyle’s proposal regarding what constituted an outstanding proposal was not disparate, but consistent with its treatment of Imagine One’s proposal. In sum, Wyle’s belief that the few identified strengths associated with its proposal warranted an outstanding rating amounted to mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation of proposals, which did not provide a basis on which to sustain the protest.

As for the cost realism argument, GAO found that the Navy’s cost realism evaluation of Imagine One’s proposal was reasonable. The record demonstrated that the Navy analyzed both the direct and indirect rates that Imagine One proposed as well as the sufficiency of the supporting information. Imagine One (and its subcontractors) provided certified payroll verification for each current employee proposed. The Navy generally determined that such certified payroll records established that Imagine One’s proposed labor rates were realistic. The Navy also assessed the realism of Imagine One’s proposed labor rates for prospective employees, and made adjustments in each instance where the labor rates were found to be unrealistically low. Given the soundness and reasonableness of the agency’s cost realism evaluation, GAO rejected Wyle’s contention that Imagine One’s costs were unrealistic simply because the firm’s proposed costs were lower than the IGCE and Wyle’s proposed costs.

GAO concluded that there was no merit in Wyle’s assertion of disparate treatment. In 2010, the Navy determined that, its subcontractor J.F. Taylor’s OCI prohibited its participation in other procurements, regardless of who proposed the company. In 2012, the Navy determined that J.F. Taylor’s previous OCI did not preclude its participation in the subject procurement, regardless of who proposed the company. The fact that Imagine One proposed J.F. Taylor as a subcontractor under the subject solicitation, but Wyle mistakenly assumed that it could not propose J.F. Taylor as a teammate, did not constitute disparate treatment on the part of the agency, GAO stated.

Wyle argued that the agency improperly converted the basis for issuing the task order here from best value to lowest-cost, technically acceptable. However, GAO found that the record demonstrated here, the SSA received an extensive preaward briefing describing the respective strengths and weaknesses of both offerors. In comparing the proposals, the SSA’s award determination summarized these strengths and weaknesses. In considering the features of the technical proposals, the SSA stated that she found the proposals to be relatively equal except for the workforce subfactor, where Wyle’s proposal was superior to that of Imagine One’s proposal. The SSA concluded, however, that the slight technical advantage of Wyle’s proposal did not outweigh the significant cost advantage of Imagine One’s proposal. From the discussion in source selection decision, it is clear the SSA made a qualitative assessment of the technical proposals as part of her award determination. There is no basis to conclude that this determination was inconsistent with the solicitation’s best value methodology.

Share

Related Posts

Do You Have the Strength(s) for this Proposal? Bedda Show Me!

February 1, 2023

Peak-a-Boo, I see You! – An Agency’s Undocumented Best Value Analysis.

February 1, 2023

Please, Make My Bid Protesting Day by Not Documenting Your Award Decision.

November 17, 2022

Open Sesame! Ya Gotta Get the Agency Report and Records.

October 24, 2022

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
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • 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
  • Facility Clearance
  • 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
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • 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
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • 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:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 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

+1-703-556-0411