Protest challenging an agency determination that a proposal was ineligible for award is denied in part and dismissed in part. The protester alleged that the problems the agency found in its proposal were minor and should not have resulted in an ineligibility determination. But the problems the agency identified—labor rates below a prescribed range, missing Excel spreadsheet, discrepancies between prime’s and subcontractor’s submissions— were not minor. In fact, the solicitation expressly stated that these types of problems would render a proposal unacceptable. What’s more, these problems could not be remedied through clarifications, but would require proposal revisions. The agency reasonably rejected the proposal.
The Army awarded a task order to ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. for software and systems engineering support. The Army found another offeror, KeyW Corporation, ineligible for award due to several problems with its cost/price proposal. KeyW protested, arguing that the problems with its proposal were only minor and should not have rendered it ineligible.
GAO found no reason to question the Army’s conclusions. The solicitation expressly stated that a cost/price proposal would not be considered for award if it: (1) proposed rates outside of direct labor rate ranges set forth in the solicitation, (2) failed to include information in an Excel template, and (3) contained discrepancies between the prime contractor’s and subcontractor’s submissions. Here, one of KeyW’s subcontractors proposed labor rates below the range set forth in the solicitation. Additionally, its subcontractors did not include an indirect labor rate worksheet in the Excel template. What’re more, there was a discrepancy between KeyW’s and one its subcontractor’s price proposals. The agency was well within its discretion in rejecting KeyW’s proposal.
Still, KeyW argued that its proposal only contained “minor errors” that the Army should have resolved through discussions. But GAO noted that the solicitation provided that the Army would make award without discussions or clarifications, so the Army was not obligated to conduct clarifications. Moreover, the problems with KeyW’s proposal were not minor and could not be resolved through clarifications. KeyW needed to revised its proposal—e.g., submit new direct labor rates and an Excel spreadsheet—to fix the problems with its proposal.
Finally, KeyW argued that the Army engaged in disparate treatment when evaluating offerors under the past performance factor. But GAO dismissed this protest ground. Because the Army reasonably found KeyW ineligible for award, the company was no longer an interested party with standing to challenge the past performance evaluation.
KeyW is represented by Paul A. Debolt, Emily A. Unnasch, Chelsea B. Knudson, and Christina E. Wood of Venable, LLP. The intervenor, ManTech, is represented by Kenneth B. Weckstein, and Andrew C. Crawford of Brown Rudnick LLP. The agency is represented by Debra Talley and Brittany York of the U.S. Army. GAO attorneys Charmaine A. Stevenson and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.