An offeror’s failure to provide the type of past performance information mandated by a solicitation led to the offeror’s elimination from consideration for a major GSA contract.
A recent GAO bid protest decision highlights the importance of fully reading and adhering to a solicitation’s requirements–including those involving the type of past performance or experience information required.
GAO’s decision in Dougherty & Associates, Inc., B-413155.9 (Sept. 1, 2016) involved the GSA “HCaTS” solicitation, which contemplated the award of multiple IDIQ contracts to provide Human Capital and Training Solutions across the federal government. The solicitation was divided into two Pools based on the offeror’s small business size status. The GSA established a target of 40 awards for each Pool.
The solicitation provided for award based on best-value, and included a requirement for past experience, which stated:
For an Offeror to be eligible for consideration under a given Pool, the Offeror shall have performed six Relevant Experience Projects [REP], with four of those Relevant Experience Projects under a NAICS Code that corresponds directly to a NAICS Code in the Pool being applied for… Each Relevant Experience Project shall meet the minimum requirements prescribed in Section L.5.2.2.
The solicitation also warned potential offerors that their experience “must be substantiated by ‘evidence within a verifiable contractual document,’ adding that an offeror ‘shall only receive credit…if the Government can validate the information,’” and that failure to meet the experience requirements “may result in the proposal being rejected.” Under the terms of the solicitation, an offeror could meet the experience requirements by “submitting for each relevant experience project: a single contract; a single task or purchase order, or a ‘collection of task orders’ that had been placed under a ‘master contract vehicle.” Finally, the solicitation required for each project that an offeror submit either a single contract/task order/purchase order, or a combination of task orders, “but not both.” The solicitation stated that “[i]f the Offeror submits the single contract and the task order(s)/purchase order(s) awarded against it, the single contract and the task order(s)/purchase order(s) shall not be considered.”
The GSA received 115 proposals. Dougherty & Associates, Inc. was one of the offerors; it submitted a proposal for both Pools. In supporting one of its required experience projects, DAI reference a subcontract between DAI and a prime contractor under an Office of Personnel Management contract. DAI also submitted three purchase orders that had been issued under the subcontract.
The GSA sought clarification from DAI regarding this experience project. The GSA noted that the project contained three separate purchase orders and “was not identified as a ‘collection of task orders’ … It’s unclear how these 3 orders are linked.”
DAI responded by stating that “[w]e did not submit this relevant project as a collection of task orders.” DAI explained that the prime contractor had used purchase orders throughout the period of the subcontract and that “[t]he purchase orders were submitted, as required by the RFP proposal submission instructions, as contractual documents to substantiate … DAI’s scope of work, [key service areas], relevancy, period of performance and project value.”
The GSA subsequently notified DAI that its proposal had been eliminated from consideration. GSA explained that the experience project in question “contains three separate purchase orders and was not identified as a ‘collection of task orders.'”
DAI filed a GAO bid protest. DAI argued that the GSA had improperly eliminated DAI based on an unreasonable reading of DAI’s proposal.
GAO explained that the solicitation required that for each of the six relevant projects “an offeror must submit either a single contract/task order/purchase order, or a collection of task orders–but not both.” GAO continued:
Here, notwithstanding these provisions, DAI submitted its OPM subcontract–along with purchase orders issued under that subcontract. Further, DAI acknowledges that the subcontract, itself, does not substantiate the various experience requirements . . .. Finally, DAI declined to comply with the solicitation requirements regarding a collection of task orders/purchase orders–despite the agency’s notification that it was unclear that the purchase orders DAI submitted were sufficiently related.
GAO denied DAI’s protest.
Dougherty & Associates, Inc. serves as a reminder to fully read and follow the specific requirements of a solicitation to a T–including those involving experience or past performance. While this is true in any solicitation, it is especially so in the case of a large multiple-award IDIQ like HCaTS with dozens (or hundreds) of offerors. In these cases, agencies may be trying to more easily whittle down the playing field, and may be all the more inclined to reject proposals for what seem like minor variances from the terms of the solicitation.