Protest alleging that the agency erred in finding protester’s proposal technically unacceptable is denied. The protester submitted a defective spreadsheet that transposed data from the column where it should have been too another column. The protester argued this was an obvious clerical error that the agency could have easily overlooked. But the agency had no duty to figure out whether the protester had submitted the correct data. What’s more, the agency had even attempted to correct issues with the protester’s data but was thwarted by other inconsistencies and omissions in the proposal. The protester also argued that it should not have received a deficiency for a map omitted from its final proposal because the map was included in an earlier proposal. But offerors cannot use a previous proposal to fill holes in their final proposals.
The Defense Information Systems Agency issued a solicitation seeking satellite communications support. Two offerors, DRS Global Enterprise Solutions, Inc. and PEAKE, responded to the solicitation. After several rounds of discussions and proposal revisions, DISA determined that PEAKE’s proposal was technically unacceptable and awarded the contract to DRS. PEAKE protested, challenging the deficiencies identified in its proposal.
DISA found PEAKE’s proposal deficient because its link budget spreadsheet—link budget is the gains and losses from a transmitter to a receiver in a communications system—did not match values in relevant coverage maps. PEAKE conceded that the links budgets included erroneous information because one column in its spreadsheet had been transposed with another. PEAKE contended that this error should be excused because the values in its budget analysis were correct. Moreover, PEAKE continued, the error in the spreadsheet was readily apparent; DISA could have easily seen that the budgets in column H of the spreadsheet should have been in column Q.
GAO did not find this compelling. PEAKE’s view that DISA should have excused the error because the values in the budget were correct was a circular argument. The margin values were calculated values. If PEAKE’s data presentation contained errors in inputs, DISA had no way of knowing that the underlying analysis was correct.
As to whether the errors in the spreadsheet were obvious, DISA actually did not notice the errors and attempted to correct them by substituting accurate numbers. This still resulted in technically unacceptable link margin values. PEAKE argued that DISA ended up with flawed values because it only corrected values in one column of the link budget spreadsheet. GAO reasoned that it is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal. PEAKE’s proposal did not clearly demonstrate compliance with the solicitation requirements. DISA attempted to give PEAKE the benefit of the doubt by attempting to correct some of the errors. But the fact that DISA failed to discover all PEAKE’s errors is not the agency’s fault.
PEAKE also argued that DISA did not provide meaningful discussions concerning the errors in its link budget. But GAO found that the DISA notified PEAKE of the link budget error in the first round of discussions and then continued to advise the company of technical problems with its link budget in subsequent rounds of discussions. While these subsequent discussion did not address the exact same data as the first round of discussions, they provided a general notice that the link budgets did not conform to the solicitation’s requirements and thus were to lead PEAKE to problematic parts of its proposal. In any event, GAO noted, due to inconsistencies between the link budgets and coverage maps in PEAKE’s proposal, it was not clear that the agency had enough information to identify all the error’s in PEAKE’s link budgets.
PEAKE also received a deficiency for failing to include a coverage map for one its proposed satellites. PEAKE contended that DISA should excuse the error because PEAKE submitted the map as part of its earlier proposal.
GAO summarily rejected this argument. Agencies are not required to infer information from an inadequately detailed proposal. What’s more, when an agency has advised offerors that they will only consider information provided in final proposal revisions, an agency is not required to use material from an earlier proposal to fill gaps in the final proposal.
PEAKE also claimed the omission of the map was irrelevant because the information on the maps was already included in its link budgets. But GAO found that this argument lacked merit. The solicitation specifically required coverage maps. By omitting them, PEAKE failed to conform to a material requirement of the solicitation.
PEAKE is represented by Richard J. Conway and Michael Slattery of Blank Rome LLP. The intervenor, DRS, is represented by Amy O’Sullivan, Gabrielle Trujillo, and Olivia Lynch of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by Colleen A. Eagan, Nati Silva, and Vera A. Strebel of the Defense Information Systems Agency. GAO attorneys Michael Willems and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
