Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied, where offerors were not limited to revising their cost/price proposals but could make any updates they deemed necessary; where the solicitation did not provide for an evaluation of the technical risks in offerors’ proposals; and where the agency was not required to evaluate past performance information the protester did not include in its proposal.
Grove Resource Solutions Inc. protested the Navy’s issuance of a task order for intelligence support services to Vickers & Nolan Enterprises LLC, alleging the agency conducted a flawed evaluation and best value decision.
First, GRSi argued the agency impermissibly permitted VNE to make wholesale changes to its final revised proposal, despite its instructions to offerors that revisions would be limited to cost/price proposals. In connection, GRSi alleged that VNE’s changes negatively affected its technical capability.
Second, GRSi argued the agency failed to analyze the technical risks resulting from VNE’s removal of its minor subcontractor and reallocation of labor hours, and that the agency failed to account for the removal of VNE’s minor subcontractor in its cost realism evaluation. Last, GRSi alleges that the Navy was obligated to consider its recent incumbent experience performing the requirements through other contract vehicles in the evaluation of its technical capability.
In response, the Navy noted that it included cautionary language in offerors’ discussion letters and subsequently clarified that offerors were permitted to make any proposal revisions deemed necessary, notwithstanding its desire for limited revisions. The agency also sent an additional email stating that due to the extended amount of time that had elapsed, it would not look negatively on necessary changes and updates.
The Navy also maintained that VNE’s reallocation of hours did not change the awardee’s technical capability and it was not required to evaluate the risks associated with the removal of VNE’s minor subcontractor since the solicitation did not anticipate an assessment of offerors’ technical approaches. The Navy further contended that its cost/price evaluation encompassed all the direct and indirect rates proposed by VNE, which did not include the removed subcontractor. Finally, the Navy asserted that it was not required to consider GRSi’s recent corporate experience because GRSi did not include the information in its proposal.
GAO denied the protest, finding that that the Navy did not limit the scope of final revised proposals and that the protester had recognized the breadth of the proposal revisions permitted in its own communications with the agency. GAO also found the solicitation did not require the agency to evaluate an offerors’ technical approach. The solicitation specified much of the technical approach the agency sought, including the labor categories and number of labor hours that offerors were to use. Therefore, the evaluation scheme did not envision that the agency would evaluate the technical risks stemming from each offeror’s technical approach, or from changes to that approach.
Additionally, GAO determined that GRSi failed to adequately explain why the removal of VNE’s subcontractor would likely to result in increased costs not already reflected in the agency’s evaluation of VNE’s final cost/price proposal. Finally, GAO recognized that under limited circumstances an agency has an obligation to consider outside information that is “too close at hand.” However, in this circumstance, GSRi was responsible for submitting a well-written proposal with adequately detailed information.
Grove Resource Solutions Inc. is represented by Jonathan D. Shaffer, Mary Pat Buckenmeyer and Todd M. Garland of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. Vickers & Nolan Enterprises is represented by Katherine S. Nucci, Scott F. Lane, and Jayna M. Rust of Thompson Coburn LLP. The government is represented by Mark S. Christopher and David D. Perrone, Department of the Navy. GAO Attorneys Alexander O. Levine and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
