Government Contracts Awardee’s Lodging Services FRP Didn’t Address All Requirements
News
Monday, December 21, 2020

Awardee’s Lodging Services FRP Didn’t Address All Requirements

By Government Contracts Editorial Staff

The Court of Federal Claims enjoined performance of a contract for lodging management services because the government failed to assess whether the awardee’s revised proposal satisfied solicitation requirements, and there was no basis for giving the proposal a “satisfactory” rating for technical approach. The performance work statement required all proposed lodging facilities to meet a variety of requirements related to room quality, amenities, cleanliness, safety and security, and parking. Under the technical approach factor, the government would evaluate the extent to which offerors met or exceeded the lodging requirement, including hotel amenities. To receive a “satisfactory” rating, a proposal had to “meet[] the minimum requirements of the solicitation” and have “no deficiencies.” An “unsatisfactory” rating would render a proposal ineligible for award.

Failure to Consider Requirements. The technical approach volume of the awardee’s revised proposal did not address the safety and security of most, or all, of the 20 proposed secondary hotels or the amenities available at 16 of the hotels. In evaluating the awardee’s initial proposal, the evaluation team determined through its own inquiry that seven of the hotels proposed as secondary hotels in the awardee’s revised proposal had video surveillance and provided all required amenities. There was no evidence the government revisited the issues of safety and security and amenities when evaluating the awardee’s revised proposal. Thus, the awardee’s revised proposal did not address, and the government did not consider, safety, security, and amenities for 13 of the awardee’s proposed secondary hotels.

Arbitrary Award. In addition, although it changed the “unsatisfactory” rating it initially assigned to the awardee’s technical approach to “satisfactory,” the government could not have concluded the awardee’s revised proposal “[met] the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Because a “[s]atisfactory rating for the technical approach factor was a prerequisite for contract award,” the award to an offeror with a less-than-satisfactory technical approach was arbitrary and capricious. (Bluewater Management Group, LLC v. U.S., FedCl, 64 CCF ¶82,021)

Back to Top

Interested in submitting an article?

Submit your information to us today!

Learn More