Protest alleging that discussions were not meaningful is denied. The agency rejected the protester’s proposal due to an unreasonably high price. The protester alleged that the agency had failed to sufficiently state during discussions that the proposed price was unreasonable. GAO rejected this argument. The agency twice informed the protester that its price was significantly higher than the government estimate. This should have led the protester to the area of its proposal that needed revision. The agency was not required to use the word “unreasonable” when raising a concern with the protester’s price.
That National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published an RFP seeking facilities maintenance and operations services. NIST received five proposals, including one from Facility Healthcare Services. NIST conducted discussion with all offerors. NIST informed Facility that its price was “significantly higher than the government estimate.”
Facility submitted a revised proposal with a reduced. NIST conducted a second round of discussion and once again advised Facility that its price was significantly higher than the government estimate. Facility submitted another revised proposal, but this time did not reduce its pricing.
After a final evaluation, NIST found that Facility’s price was not reasonable. NIST awarded the contract to another offeror, Peak Facility Solutions, LLC. Facility protested.
Facility contended that NIST failed to conduct meaningful discussions on price. Facility argued that NIST should have expressly advised Facility that its price was unreasonably high.
GAO noted that discussions are meaningful when they lead the offer into areas of its proposal requiring revisions. Here, the record showed that NIST identified price as an issue during each round of discussions. Facility was given two opportunities to revise to adjust its price. Despite this Facility chose not to revise its price after the first round of discussions. NIST sufficiently pointed Facility to the area requiring revision; the absence of a particular word—“unreasonable”—did not render the discussions inadequate.
GAO next considered whether the agency erred in finding Facility’s price unreasonably high. GAO found no error. NIST evaluated price reasonableness by comparing Facility’s proposed price with the government estimate and with other proposed prices. Facility’s price was 45.5 percent higher than the estimate and 33.6 percent higher than the fourth lowest proposed price.
Because its price was unreasonably high, Facility’s proposal was un-awardable. As a result, GAO found that the other argument raised in Facility’s protest were moot.
Facility is represented by William Weisberg of the Law Office of William Weisberg. The intervenor, Peak, is represented by John R. Prairie, George E. Petel, and Adam Briscoe of Wiley Rein LLP. The agency is represented by Jonathan S. Baker of the Department of Commerce. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards and John Sorrenti participated in the preparation of the decision.
