Decision released in protest denial of DOJ EOUSA EAD team and USANET website development requirement

DIGEST

Protest challenging evaluation of quotation as technically unacceptable is denied where record shows the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation.

DISCUSSION

Manutek takes issue with the agency’s assessment of weaknesses and deficiencies in the vendor’s quotation.5  The protester contends that the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion by requiring a specific level of detail not set out in the solicitation, and Manutek maintains that its quotation provided all the information required by the RFQ.  Additionally, the protester argues it was unreasonable for the agency to not consider Manutek’s quotation in the best-value tradeoff, because Manutek had quoted a much lower price than the awardee.  While we do not address every argument or variation of an argument raised by Manutek, we have reviewed them all and find that none provides a basis to sustain the protest.6

Technical Approach Evaluation

The record shows that the evaluators assessed three deficiencies in Manutek’s quotation, one related to the protester’s plan for providing on-site personnel and two related to the protester’s technical approach.  AR, Tab E, Consensus Technical Evaluation Report at 491.  As representative examples, we discuss the two deficiencies assessed under the most important evaluation factor, technical approach.

Under technical approach, the solicitation instructed each vendor to “provide its proposed technical solution for accomplishing all requirements in this RFQ,” and “[a] detailed work plan which includes a description of the tasks and subtasks involved, the methodology used in completing each task, and the criteria to be used in evaluating the requirements of personnel assigned to each task.”  AR, Tab C, Final RFQ at 358.  The solicitation’s instructions cautioned vendors that “simple repetition and/or paraphrasing of the requirements set forth in this SOW [statement of work] is not an adequate demonstration of a proper understanding and grasp of the scope of effort required and will be judged as technically unacceptable.”  Id.  Similarly, the solicitation’s evaluation criteria advised the following:  “Offerors are cautioned that ‘parroting’ of the SOW with a statement of intent to perform does not reveal the Offeror understands [ ] the problem or their capability for addressing it.”  Id.  at 361.  With respect to the technical approach factor, vendors would be evaluated “on their ability to demonstrate technical sufficiency in their proposed technical approach,” and were advised that quotations “shall address information regarding how the proposed technical support task area(s) identified in Section 5.0 will be performed, the various resources that will be used to facilitate performance, and an identification of potential difficulties in conducting the work and practical suggestions for overcoming these difficulties.”  AR, Tab C, Final RFQ at 361.  Additionally, the solicitation required vendors to “[d]escribe your understanding and qualifications of the work being requested in the SOW,” and “[d]emonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the programs and applications in the SOW and how you will plan to execute…

DECISION

Manutek Inc., a small disadvantaged business of Canton, Michigan, protests the rejection of its quotation as technically unacceptable under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15JA0523Q00000105, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for information technology services.    We deny the protest.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story