A single weak link in a contractor’s proposal resulted in its highly praised proposal losing to one with fewer evaluated strengths.
Seeking mission support services in its work to counter improvised threats, such as IEDs and other homemade explosives, the Joint Improvised-Threat Defense Organization (JIDO) recently issued a task order for subject matter expertise. Its award drew a protest from Sev1Tech, Inc. challenging JIDO’s choice of Amyx, Inc. for the task order.
When evaluating the contractors’ proposals, JIDO stressed it was seeking a coherent discussion of how the offeror proposes to meet its requirements rather than a restatement of the requirements or a listing of what it proposes to do. The protesting contractor received heaps of praise for most of its methodologies, with the final evaluation resulting in Sev1Tech having nine strengths compared to Amyx’s six strengths. However, the lack of detail on just one technical requirement snowballed into a worry that the hypothetical flaw would negate all of Sev1Tech’s noted strengths.
JIDO decided Sev1Tech had only provided general statements regarding what it was proposing to do to satisfy a specific technical requirement. As a result, the agency found that it was unclear how the protester would satisfy the requirements of the solicitation and assigned a “significant weakness” to the element in its evaluation. Even with this weakness, Sev1Tech still retained more strengths in its proposal, but the agency feared the risk of a flaw in this single section would compromise the entire task order.
The protester insisted its technical rating was evaluated too low, given the numerous positive comments found in the evaluation, and that the awarded contractor’s evaluation was too high due to missing programs in its proposal.
The General Accountability Office denied the protest after finding JIDO’s demand for details formed a reasonable basis to assign the technical rating. It also ruled the missing programs were not required in the solicitation and, therefore, could not be considered a material term.
In sum, the decision should serve as a cautionary tale for providing not just what a contractor can perform, but exactly how it plans to do so.
About the Author:
Tyler Freiberger is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting primarily focusing on employment law and litigation. He has successfully litigated employment issues before the EEOC, MSPB, local counties human rights commissions, the United States D.C. District Court, Maryland District Court, and the Eastern District of Virginia.