Regardless of what impression you may receive during discussions, changes made in a solicitation amendment must be reflected in your final proposal revisions. Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc., B-421967.2, July 30, 2024. The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) makes that clear in this case, and it is instructive for all offerors.
The Defense Department issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) for nuclear enterprise and assistance services. The RFP provided for a best-value tradeoff considering mission capability (including management and technical approach), past performance and cost. The first two factors were equally important and more important than cost. The solicitation advised that the agency will examine how the proposal demonstrated the ability to manage the requirements of the performance work statement (“PWS”). The solicitation also defined an unacceptable proposal that contained one or more deficiencies and was not awardable.
After an award had been made by Defense, Systems Planning protested various aspects of the procurement including discussions, evaluations and the decision itself. The agency proposed to take corrective action to include Systems Planning in the competitive range, hold discussions, request proposal revisions and make a new source selection determination.
Defense amended the solicitation, and made two material changes to the PWS: (1) changing a requirement from providing instructors for nuclear planning and targeting to a different requirement to provide instructors for explosive ordnance disposal; and (2) adding a requirement to provide training area management. After this amendment, revised proposals from SAIC and Systems Planning were received. However, Defense assessed a deficiency in System Planning’s proposal, finding that the contractor’s revised mission capability proposal addressed the requirements in the original PWS, not the requirements in the amended PWS ,and that this was a material failure making the proposal not acceptable.
Systems Planning Protested that the agency unreasonably rated its proposal as unacceptable in the mission capability area.
The GAO noted that the solicitation clearly advised offerors that the agency would evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrated the ability to manage the requirements of the PWS. Furthermore, the protester acknowledged that it did not revise its mission capability volume of its proposal to reflect the revised PWS. Systems Planning stated that it had received a letter from the agency during discussions answering its question about how evaluations would be made. Systems Planning argued that this letter permitted it to ignore the solicitation changes made to the PWS, but the GAO found that to be a misinterpretation of the letter. “Reading the solicitation and the agency’s response [] as a whole, offerors were on notice that their revised proposals would be evaluated against the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, which explicitly referenced the PWS and included the revised PWS requirements.” GAO noted that the solicitation clearly stated that an unacceptable proposal was un-awardable, and Systems Planning’s was unacceptable and could not receive award.
The company was out of luck, and GAO denied the protest.
Takeaway. Never ignore amendments to a solicitation, whether prior to initial submission of proposals, or any final proposal revisions. Every proposal you submit must address the entire solicitation, including all amendments.
For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:
Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes.
Comments