In latest edition of The Wright Toolbox:
Protest Denied Because Responsive Information Was Not In The Proper Place
In this case the GAO denied a protest because although the required responsive information was in the bid, some of the information was not in the proper sections of the bid. The case is Matter of: Crittenton Consulting Grp., Inc., B-422503 (July 10, 2024). Crittenton Consulting Group, Inc. (CCGI), a small business in Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order by the General Services Administration (GSA), on behalf of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to provide records management services for the FBI’s Information Management Division. The Information Services Section (ISS), within IMD, oversees the creation, maintenance, digitization, storage, and disposition of records in all media formats. The task order was for contractor assistance with, among other things, records lifecycle management, inventory, file services, image/document conversion, assistance preparing retention/dispositional archival schedules, and assistance with records retention/disposition.
The technical evaluation consisted of four factors of equal importance: (1) corporate experience; (2) technical expertise and solutions; (3) staffing and management strategies; and (4) key personnel. The agency received quotations from five vendors, including CCGI. After initial compliance review each quotation contained at least one instance of non-compliance. The contracting officer issued confer letters to each vendor identifying the areas of non-compliance and providing an opportunity to submit revised quotations, which each bidder did. The agency identified a number of strengths, three weaknesses, and two deficiencies in CCGI’s technical quotation. As a result, the agency assigned CCGI a rating of medium confidence under the corporate experience factor and a rating of low confidence under the technical expertise factor. The agency issued the task order to a competing bid and CCGI protested.
CCGI contended that the agency improperly evaluated its corporate experience and technical expertise factors because the agency ignored readily apparent information in its quotation. The GAO noted that “[t]he evaluation of quotations is a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency. [citation omitted] Our Office does not independently evaluate quotations; rather, we review the agency’s evaluation to ensure that it is consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.”
The RFQ provided detailed instructions for the submission of quotations. As relevant here, all four technical factors were to be addressed in volume II of the quotation. The RFQ required vendors to organize their quotations to correspond to the evaluation criteria and listed page limits for each factor. Further, the RFQ cautioned vendors that pages in excess of the limits would not be considered in the evaluation. Vendors were advised that failing to include sufficient details in their quotations could result in exclusion from the competition or the assignment of weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies.
Under the corporate experience factor, the RFQ required vendors to submit prior experience on a certain attachment. CCGI submitted its corporate experience using the required attachment. However, the agency found the experience listed lacked sufficient detail. The agency also found that CCGI’s quotation lacked details regarding its experience with image and media conversion. The agency found further that the lack of details “reduces the confidence level in CCGI’s ability to staff and support the disposition services function and the media conversion function” and increased “the risk of unsuccessful task order performance.”
CCGI argued that it did “conspicuously and granularly” detail its experience in other sections of its quotation and that it used the attachment to add details to its quotation. In response, the agency stated that it evaluated CCGI’s quotation in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ and that only information contained in the section addressing a specific technical factor was considered in the evaluation of that factor. CCGI contended that it provided significant details about its conversion and disposition experience under the corporate experience factor on pages 19-25. The agency explained pages 19-25 are part of the section in which it addresses the technical experience/solutions factor; because pages 19-25 were not part of the proposal section addressing corporate experience, the agency did not consider their content as part of its evaluation of corporate experience.
The GAO concluded that the agency reasonably assessed the protester’s bid. It observed that the RFQ included specific instructions as to the content of quotations and identified page limits for each technical factor, including a limit of 15 pages for the corporate experience factor. The GAO noted that it was undisputed that the pages cited by CCGI as providing significant detail demonstrating CCGI’s experience with disposition and conversion processes are not found within the 15-page section of its quotation addressing the corporate experience factor. The GAO held that “in a competitive FSS procurement, it is a vendor’s responsibility to submit a well-written quotation, with adequately detailed information, which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements and allows a meaningful review by the procuring agency. eKuber Ventures, Inc., B-420877, B-420877.2, Oct. 13, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 256 at 6; LS3 Techs. Inc., B-407459; B-407459.2, Jan. 7, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 21 at 4. The GAO continued, “[c]ontracting agencies evaluating one section of a quotation are not required to go in search of additional information that a vendor has omitted or failed to adequately present.” See e.g., Carolina Satellite Networks, LLC; Nexagen Networks, Inc., B-405558 et al., Nov. 22, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 257 at 5. Further, “[a] vendor’s technical evaluation is dependent on the information furnished, and a vendor that fails to submit an adequately written quotation runs the risk of having its quotation downgraded.” See Henry Schein, Inc., B-405319, Oct. 18, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 264 at 7.
The take-away here is that a bidder must follow the RFQ requirements to the letter and submit the required information in the required sections of its bid or risk having the procuring agency ignore and refuse to consider relevant information.
If you have any questions regarding the matters addressed herein, please contact any member of the WCS Government Contracts practice group.