Protest that agency engaged in unfair and misleading discussions is denied where the agency did not limit the proposal aspects that could be revised, and the protester therefore should have been aware of its right to make proposal revisions beyond the specific areas raised by the agency during discussions.
CACI, Inc.-Federal protested the General Services Administration’s award of a task order for systems operations and maintenance to Digital Management LLC, arguing the agency engaged in misleading discussions.
CACI argued that it was directed to provide only limited revisions to its proposal, while discussions with Digital Management more broadly invited proposal revisions. In support of this argument, the protester explained that the only area of its proposal where it was directed to provide anything beyond “confirmation” or “clarification” related to a request from the agency to provide additional price discounts for option years 3 and 4. In contrast, the awardee was invited to provide broader revisions to its proposal, including a rationale for its staffing hours and substantiation for its discounts across all of its rates. According to CACI, had it been specifically advised that it could broadly revise its proposal, it would have increased its price discounts for the other contract periods, beyond option years 3 and 4, and thereby reduced its final price.
GAO disagreed, finding the agency did not limit the scope of CACI’s final proposal revisions to those proposal areas expressly addressed during discussions. Although the protester broadly suggested that this was the case, the agency’s contemporaneous notes of the discussions meeting do not reflect any such instruction being provided, nor did CACI provide any support for its claim.
To the extent CACI inferred such a limitation based on the narrow areas raised during discussions, GAO found that inference was not reasonable. Offerors may revise any aspect of their proposals during discussions, even when an agency does not expressly advise offerors of this right and instead instructs them to answer specific questions about their proposals. Further, CACI could have asked the agency if changes to its proposal were limited.
Finally, GAO noted that discussions do not have to be equal among all offerors for them to be considered meaningful and equal. Rather, discussions are tailored to each offeror’s proposal.
CACI Inc.-Federal is represented by Sharon L. Larkin and Elizabeth A. Ferrell of Larkin Ferrell LLP. Digital Management LLC is represented by Alfred M. Wurglitz, and Cameron S. Hamrick of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. The government is represented by Maria G. Bellizzi, General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Alexander O. Levine and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.