By Government Contracts Editorial Staff
A challenge to the evaluation of proposals for information technology solutions and services was rejected because the government reasonably concluded the protester’s proposal was unacceptable, and there was no disparate treatment. The request for proposals contemplated additional awards under a governmentwide acquisition contract. The maximum order amount was $20 billion with a minimum guarantee of $250 per awardee. The technical capability and understanding evaluation was comprised of ten subfactors corresponding to ten task areas. The evaluators found the protester’s proposal did not demonstrate a “level of knowledge and expertise warranting further assessment” or “adequately discuss or describe” the methodology and technical approach for Task Area 1, and they characterized the protester’s experience descriptions as high-level and “lack[ing] any detail [on] future requirement[s] for [Task Area 1].” The government concluded the proposal failed to demonstrate an overall technical approach and specific methodology for performance, and rated the proposal unacceptable. According to the protester, the evaluation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFP.
Brief Summaries. The Comptroller General denied the protest, finding the record supported the evaluation. The protester’s technical approach and methodology was largely a description of multiple past efforts that were depicted in only a few words without explanation of the examples’ approach or relevance to the requirements. Since the proposal provided only brief summaries of the protester’s experience, and not an actual technical approach and methodology, the government reasonably concluded the Task Area 1 approach was unacceptable and, consistent with the RFP, did not further evaluate the protester’s proposal. The protester also argued the government evaluated the proposals inconsistently by rejecting the protester’s proposal while, at the same time, favorably evaluating, and then awarding contracts to, at least three other offerors whose technical proposals were essentially identical copies of the same template proposal. However, in contrast to the protester’s proposal, the template proposals provided a technical approach and methodology in response to Task Area 1. The government had the discretion to award contracts to these template offerors, even though it recognized that the use of the template also posed a risk and raised questions about the offerors’ ability to fulfill the contract requirements. The protester’s remaining arguments concerning disparate treatment lacked a factual basis. (Biswas Information Technology Solutions, Inc., 34 CGEN ¶116,387)
Interested in submitting an article?
Submit your information to us today!Learn More