Protest alleging that the terms of the offered contract differed from the solicitation’s terms is dismissed. The protester submitted proposal using an agency-provided pricing template. The agency offered the protester a contract, but the terms of the contract included common pricing and performance standards developed by the agency, not the terms from the pricing template. The protester claimed that the terms of the contract were so materially different from the solicitation’s terms that the agency should have amended the solicitation and allowed offerors to submit revised proposals. GAO, however, found that the solicitation had expressly provided that the agency would include common pricing and performance standards in the contract. To the extent the protester was challenging the common pricing, such challenge was an untimely objection to the terms of the solicitation.
The Department of Education (DOE) published a solicitation seeking to award multiple IDIQ contracts for customer support services for those seeking student financing information. The solicitation required offerors to propose pricing consistent with a pricing template. The solicitation stated that DOE would evaluate the reasonableness and realism of proposed pricing. Although the agency would evaluate reasonableness and realism, the solicitation further provided that DOE would common pricing and performance metrics prior to award. If any offeror rejected DOE’s common price, the agency could offer a contract to next highest ranked offeror.
The agency received 12 proposals. The SSA determined that eight offerors, including Navient Solutions, were eligible for award. DOE notified Navient that it had been selected for award. The notification, however, also stated that Navient must accept DOE’s common pricing and performance standards. Navient rejected the agency’s common pricing and performance standards. DOE awarded contracts to five offerors. Navient protested.
Navient argued that the terms of the contract differed so materially from the solicitation that DOE was required to issue an amendment and give offerors the chance to submit revised proposals. Specifically, Navient argued that DOE’s common pricing requirement, which fixed price and task duration, changed the terms of the solicitation and required an amendment.
GAO disagreed. The solicitation informed offerors that the agency planned to establish common pricing that it believed to be fair and reasonable. While the solicitation included a pricing template, the solicitation had stated that the assumptions in the solicitation were provided for informational purposes only. The solicitation also stated that the agency would establish common performance standards. Thus, the terms offered by the contract were consistent with the solicitation’s terms. To the extent that Navient contended that the contract established common pricing and performance standards without allowing offerors a chance to submit a revised proposal, that challenge constituted an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation.
Next, Navient contended that DOE failed to perform a price realism analysis required by the solicitation. This failure, Navient alleged, resulted in the rejection of contracts from larger, experience companies.
GAO noted that the solicitation expressly provided that DOE would review price realism. The record showed that the agency considered a variety of pricing data to establish common pricing ranges. As part of that, DOE analyzed offerors’ proposed pricing to determine whether they were in established common pricing ranging ranges, which necessarily resulted in an assessment of whether prices were too low.
GAO reasoned that insofar as Navient’s arguments that the common pricing established by the agency was too low, this argument constituted an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation. The solicitation clearly provided that if an offeror rejected common pricing, the agency would consider the next highest-rated offeror. While Navient may have disagreed as to the common pricing established by DOE, nothing required the agency to continue negotiated with Navient once the company rejected common pricing.
Navient is represented by Jonathan D. Shaffer and Todd Garland of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. Intervenors Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority and the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation are represented by Scott F. Lane, Katherine S. Nucci, and Jayna Marie Rust of Thompson Coburn, LLP. Intervenor F.H. Cann is represented by Rebecca E. Pearson, Christopher G. Griesedieck, and Taylor A. Hillman of Venable, LLP. The agency is represented by John W. Kim and Megan R. Nathan of the Department of Education. GAO attorneys Charmaine A. Stevenson and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.