Protest Decision Released: USSOCOM Global Information Operation Technical Support Services Denial

Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under task order request (TOR) No. 47QFCA23R0029, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for technical support services for the United States Special Operations Command. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated it from the competition.

DISCUSSION

Peraton argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal from the competition and failed to provide Peraton with a fair opportunity to be considered for the task order award.  Specifically, the protester contends that the removal of its proposal from further consideration is inconsistent with terms of the TOR, which does not notify offerors that proposals may be eliminated from the competition based on inconsistencies between the staffing plan, attachment P, and the cost/price workbook, attachment Q.  Protest at 17, 20.  Peraton further argues that, to the extent its proposal did in fact include the mistakes identified by the agency, those discrepancies were minor in nature as they do not change the total number of proposed hours or cost and could have been resolved in the agency’s cost realism analysis or through clarifications to its original proposal.  Protest at 19-20.    GSA responds that it reasonably eliminated Peraton’s proposal from consideration during its conformance review in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.  The agency contends that the inconsistencies between the staffing plan and the cost/price workbook hours prevented the agency from conducting a technical evaluation and failed to satisfy the solicitation’s material requirements.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 5-6.  The agency further contends that the protester’s responses to clarification questions did not resolve the discrepancies, and that they offered new information absent from Peraton’s initial proposal.  MOL at 9-11.    A contracting agency’s evaluation of offeror responses in a task order competition is a matter within the agency’s discretion.  Logistics Mgmt. Inst., B-417601 et al., Aug. 30, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 311 at 4.  In reviewing an agency’s evaluation, we will not reevaluate the responses; rather we will examine the evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations.  American Fuel Cell & Coated Fabrics Co., B-420551, B-420551.2, June 2, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 139 at 9.  While we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency, we will sustain a protest where the agency’s conclusions are inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, inadequately documented, or not reasonably based.  McCann-Erickson USA, Inc., B-414787, Sept. 18, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 300 at 3.  As explained below, we find that the agency’s determination to exclude Peraton’s proposal from the competition was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.  We cannot conclude however that the agency’s error caused Peraton to suffer any competitive prejudice and therefore we find no basis on which to sustain the protest.9    Elimination from the Competition  We note first that nothing in the TOR’s evaluation criteria advised offerors that the agency would perform a preliminary pass/fail conformance review of proposals to determine whether the offerors had complied strictly with the solicitation’s proposal instructions.  We also note that there is no evaluation criterion informing offerors that the agency would eliminate proposals having inconsistencies between technical and cost/price proposals.  Agencies are required to evaluate proposals exclusively based on the evaluation factors stated in the solicitation.  While a solicitation may establish additional informational, technical, administrative, or other requirements in the instructions for proposal preparation, those requirements may not properly be considered in connection with the evaluation of proposals–and correspondingly may not provide a basis for eliminating a proposal from consideration–unless those additional requirements also are specified as a basis for proposal evaluation…

DECISION

Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under task order request (TOR) No. 47QFCA23R0029, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for technical support services for the United States Special Operations Command.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated it from the competition.  We deny the protest.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story