“We’ll tell you how we’ll manage the contract–after you award it to us.”
That, in essence, appeared to be the position taken by one contractor recently in response to a Department of Defense solicitation. The contractor in question failed to provide an operations and management plan required by the solicitation, pledging to provide it after award. Not surprisingly, the agency assigned the contractor an “unacceptable” score. And equally unsurprising, the GAO denied the contractor’s bid protest.
Small government contractors sometimes rely on subcontractors to help satisfy experience, certification, past performance, and other solicitation requirements. But if one recent GAO bid protest decision is an indication of things to come, procuring agencies may begin requiring more information up front about major subcontractors–including a copy of the final subcontract agreement itself.
“I’m thinking of a number between one and ten–can you guess what it is?”
It sounds like the beginning of an amateur magic trick, or perhaps a segment on the ever-popular Colbert Report. But in a recent GAO bid protest decision, the stakes of the guessing game were a lot higher. In that case, the agency developed an internal estimate of the staffing needed to successfully complete the contract work, but did not disclose the estimate to offerors–then downgraded two offerors for failing to “guess” the same staffing numbers as the agency.
Unfortunately for the agency, the GAO refused to play along.
During the NFL’s recent replacement referee debacle, the rules of the game sometimes seemed to be in flux. San Francisco coach Jim Harbaugh, for instance, convinced the replacement refs to give him two extra challenges by playing dumb about how the challenge process works. But with the “real” referees back on the field, NFL teams now know that they once again need to play by the rules.
When it comes to proposals, contractors, too, need to play by the rules. An agency solicitation sets forth the ground rules of the competition, and varying from those stated rules can result in an unacceptable offer–as one contractor recently discovered when it attempted to amend the solicitation’s pricing table.
Politicians love vagueness. It’s easy for a candidate to promise broad generalities like lower taxes, a stronger military, better schools, or a free pony in the backyard for every American child (okay, I made that last one up). It’s a lot more difficult to provide specifics about how all those wonderful things will be achieved.
Government contractors, too, can be tempted to rely on vague declarations in proposal-writing. After all, it’s a lot easier than addressing the nuts-and-bolts of the procuring agency’s needs. But as one contractor recently discovered in a GAO bid protest decision, a vague proposal may also be an unacceptable proposal.
In today’s tight budgetary climate, performance-based acquisitions and similar techniques to maximize efficiency seem to be on the rise. Performance-based acquisitions can offer unique opportunities for contractors to develop innovative approaches to meet an agency’s needs while minimizing costs.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, one offeror proposed fewer labor hours–and a different labor mix–than the awardee, resulting in a lower overall price. Nevertheless, without explanation, the procuring agency in question unilaterally raised the offeror’s labor hours to match the hours proposed by the awardee, resulting in a corresponding increase in evaluated price. The GAO was none too pleased with the agency’s action, sustaining the offeror’s bid protest.
Our firm experienced a strange email outage yesterday: I could receive incoming email messages through my Outlook account, but anything I tried to send bounced back. After several bounce backs, I began emailing clients and other contacts from a gmail account (if you were on the receiving end, my apologies for the temporary lack of a professional email address, but it’s better than ignoring you, right?)
All this is to say that I can sympathize with McKesson Technologies, which experienced technical difficulties (as well as an unfortunate spelling problem) when trying to submit a proposal by email. Although the agency awarded McKesson the contract anyway, a competitor filed a GAO bid protest, and that was the end of McKesson’s award.