Share:
The solicitation required offerors to provide a quality control plan. The protester argued that it had included the plan and that the agency should have sought clarification if confused. GAO noted that vendors must submit complete quotations that meet all solicitation requirements and that agencies have broad discretion in seeking clarifications. The protester’s quotation contained only a promise to develop a plan in the future rather than an actual draft plan. GAO denied the protest.
OReady, LLC, GAO B-422910.2
- Background – The agency issued a small business set-aside RFQ for Linux system support services for the National Weather Service Pacific Region offices. The solicitation required vendors to provide a draft quality control plan demonstrating how quality standards would be met. After initial award and a successful protest by another vendor, the agency reevaluated quotations. The agency then excluded the protester from competition for failing to include the required draft quality control plan.
- Technical Evaluation – The protester argued that it included a draft quality control plan in its 12-page technical quotation. However, the only reference to the plan appeared on page 4, which merely stated: “A draft Quality Control Plan will be developed and implemented.” GAO found the agency reasonably concluded this was a promise to create a plan in the future, not the actual draft plan required by the solicitation. The protester’s claims that the plan appeared on pages 12-24 were undermined by the fact that its quotation was only 12 pages long.
- Clarifications – The protester contended the agency should have sought clarifications if it couldn’t find the quality control plan. GAO explained that under simplified acquisition procedures, agencies have broad discretion whether to engage in clarifications, and vendors have no automatic right to them. Moreover, the failure to include a required draft plan was not a minor uncertainty that could be resolved through clarifications, but required discussions and proposal revisions.
- Competitive Prejudice – The protester raised additional evaluation challenges, claiming the agency’s “shifting justification reveals lack of fair evaluation.” GAO declined to address these remaining allegations because the protester’s failure to submit the required draft quality control plan rendered its quotation unacceptable and ineligible for award. Thus, the protester lacked competitive prejudice.
The protester is represented by Michael Faro. The government is represented by Laetitia Hua and Marlene Egierski of the Department of Commerce. GAO attorneys Emily R. O’Hara and Peter H. Tran participated in the decision.
Share:
