Negotiated acquisitions

The protestor challenged the SSA's decision as unreasonable; the GAO agreed. Reviewing the SSA's decision for reasonableness, consistency with the evaluation factors, and adequacy of documentation, (148) the GAO found that the record provided no support for "questioning the weaknesses identified by the TET (and CET) relating to the adequacy of ITT's proposed staffing." (149) The GAO also failed to see any reasonable basis for "discounting" the performance risks the TET identified, or the CET's determination that ITT's cost proposal information was incomplete. (150) The GAO also found that the SSA engaged in "disparate treatment" by assigning a "high-performance risk" rating to the protestor's cost proposal based on low proposed hourly labor rates, but did not do the same for ITT, which proposed similarly low labor rates. (151)

Don't Forget About Cost/Price

In A&D Fire Protection Inc. (A&D Fire Protection I), (152) the GAO reminded all agencies to consider cost or price to the government when they evaluate competitive proposals. In A&D Fire Protection I, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued an RFP for design and construction services at the National Cemetery in San Diego, California. The RFP listed four evaluation factors in descending order of importance: price, construction management experience, past performance, and schedule. Of the six offers the VA received, A&D Fire Protection Inc. (A&D) offered the lowest overall price. (153) The VA, however, eliminated A&D's proposal from the competition without further consideration because the agency determined that it was not "sufficiently technically capable to perform the project." (154) The GAO opinion stated that every RFP must include cost or price to the government, and that agencies must always consider cost or price when evaluating proposals. The GAO added that "the elimination of technically acceptable proposals without meaningful consideration of price is inconsistent with the agency's obligation to evaluate proposals under all of the solicitation's criteria, including price." (155)

If at First You Don't Succeed, Try Again ... and Then Again

The VA followed the GAO's recommendation in A&D Fire Protection I, and conducted a new cost-technical tradeoff analysis in accordance with the terms of the RFP. The VA's results, however, were much the same. In A&D Fire Protection Inc. (A&D Fire Protection II), (156) the VA determined that the proposal of the original awardee, Stronghold Engineering, Inc. (Stronghold), represented the "best value" to the government because cost savings associated with Stronghold's technical advantages offset A&D's price advantage. (157) More specifically, the VA concluded that Stronghold's proposal intended to shorten the completion schedule for the project by up to sixty-five days, which the VA determined would result in significant cost savings to the agency. A&D once again challenged the VA's decision, asserting that Stronghold offered "no commitment," but only an "attempt" to complete the project in less time than the solicitation required. (158) The GAO again agreed with A&D, finding that the VA erroneously concluded that Stronghold offered a shorter performance schedule. Reviewing the language of Stronghold's proposal, the GAO sustained the protest, determining that "Stronghold's 'intention' and 'belief' that it could complete the contract work sooner than the minimum 420-day completion schedule required by the RFP is not the contractual commitment that the solicitation required to receive additional evaluation credit for an accelerated schedule." (159) Major Huyser.