Protester Neglected to Submit Experience Volume. Was the Protester’s Quotation Noncompliant, or Should the Agency Have Assessed a Neutral Experience Rating?

The protester mistakenly omitted the experience volume from its quotation. The protester argued its quotation shouldn’t have been rejected; instead, the agency should have simply assessed the protester a neutral experience rating. GAO disagreed. By omitting the experience volume, the protester failed to follow solicitation instructions. The quotation was thus noncompliant. 

Interior Systems, Inc., d/b/a ISI Professional Services, GAO B-421932 

• Protester’s Quotation – The solicitation required vendors to submit a separate volume for each evaluation factor. The protester submitted a quotation but neglected to submit a volume for the experience factor. The agency notified the protester that its quotation was noncompliant. A few days later, the protester emailed the agency about the missing experience volume. The agency said the protester was still ineligible. 
• Neutral Experience Rating? – The protester argued there was no difference between a quotation that omitted an experience volume and a quote with no relevant experience. The agency has not received experience information in both instances. The solicitation stated that when a vendor lacks experience, they should get a neutral rating. Thus, the protester reasoned, instead of finding the protester non-compliant, the agency should have simply assessed the protester a neutral rating. 
• Agency Properly Rejected Protester’s Quotation – The neutral-rating argument did not persuade GAO. The solicitation expressly required vendors to submit an experience volume. There is a difference between not submitting an experience volume and not having experience. In the former, the vendor has failed to follow solicitation instructions. In the latter, the vendor may not have experience, but they followed instructions and gave the agency something to evaluate. Here, the protester had not followed instructions. The protester could not simply omit available information and expect to receive a neutral rating. 
• Untimely Experience Volume – The protester argued the agency should have considered the experience volume it submitted after its quote was rejected. The protester reasoned the solicitation did not incorporate FAR 52.212.-1, which prohibits an agency from considering untimely quotations. But GAO noted the solicitation had been issued under a GSA multiple award contract. The GSA contract included FAR 52.212-1. Moreover, the solicitation expressly incorporated all the terms of the GSA contract. Thus, FAR 52.212-1 applied and barred the agency from considering the late volume. 

The protester is represented by Eric A. Valle, Isaias “Cy” Alba, IV, Katherine B. Burrows, Jacqueline K. Unger, and Dozer L. Gardner, Jr. of PilieroMazza PLLC. The agency is represented by Carlos P. Pedraza and Camille Small-Simon of the Department of Justice. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards and John Sorrenti participated in the decision. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor