By Government Contracts Editorial Staff
A protest of a contract award for guard services was sustained because the record showed unresolved issues regarding the awardee’s proposed labor hours. The request for proposals required offerors to include an organizational chart identifying “the direct and indirect labor hours and associated trade classification required to meet all requirements of the RFP” as well as “a plan to organize, train, schedule, manage and supervise workforce personnel.” The performance work statement set out the government’s requirements in a series of “spec items,” which included management and administration time and task hours for providing guard services. The technical evaluators assessed the awardee’s initial proposal two deficiencies—one because the awardee’s proposed hours for a project manager did not meet the independent government estimate’s hour requirements, and another because the proposal did not explain how scheduling procedures addressed nonproductive time. After the government conducted discussions and the awardee revised its staffing plan, the technical evaluators concluded the deficiencies had been resolved.
Discrepancies. For the first deficiency, the Comptroller General could not find that the evaluation was reasonable. In its final revised proposal, the awardee reduced the project manager’s proposed hours and indicated the hours were non-billable. In reviewing the FRP, the technical evaluators considered some of the awardee’s guard relief hours to be M&A hours “[f]or purposes of evaluation against the IGE,” and they found both the M&A and guard services hours to be sufficient because they met or exceeded the IGE’s benchmarks. However, the technical evaluation record failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why the evaluators considered guard relief labor hours to be M&A hours. Without such an explanation, and taking into consideration the proposal’s clear indication that the proposed hours were for guard services, it was improper to evaluate these hours as M&A hours. Further, since the government unreasonably evaluated the relief hours as M&A hours, the conclusion that the FRP resolved the deficiency was also unreasonable. Finally, the source selection evaluation board found the proposed number of labor hours in the technical and price portions of the awardee’s FRP were inconsistent, but the government did not reasonably resolve these alleged inconsistencies. The Comptroller General recommended the government reevaluate the proposals and make a new source selection decision. (Patronus Systems, Inc., 35 CGEN ¶116,939)
Interested in submitting an article?
Submit your information to us today!Learn More