An evaluation of
proposals for
installation support
services was
improper because the
government
mechanically and
unequally applied
undisclosed staffing
estimates in
determining whether
the proposals were
acceptable. The
request for
proposals provided
for award to the
lowest-price,
technically-acceptable
offeror. A proposal
had to clearly meet
the minimum RFP
requirements to be
acceptable for a
particular factor or
subfactor, and
proposals that did
not clearly meet the
stated minimum
requirements would
be deemed
unacceptable. The
government assigned
both protesters a
rating of
unacceptable under
the resources
subfactor of the
technical
suitability factor
for failing to offer
adequate staffing,
found both of their
proposals
technically
unacceptable, and
awarded a contract
to a higher-priced
offeror. The
protesters argued
the government used
an undisclosed
staffing estimate to
determine whether
their staffing plans
were adequate.
According to the
protesters, whenever
any of the proposals
included less than
the number of full
time equivalents
used to prepare the
undisclosed staffing
estimate, the
government
automatically
assigned a
deficiency, which
caused their
proposals to be
rejected as
unacceptable.
Inconsistent
Evaluation
In sustaining the
protest, the
Comptroller General
explained
"[i]t is
inappropriate to
determine the
acceptability of
proposals by the
mechanical
application of
undisclosed
government
estimates, since
doing so fails to
assess whether a
firm's proposed
workforce is
particularly skilled
and efficient, or
whether, because of
a unique approach, a
firm could
satisfactorily
perform the work
with different
staffing than
estimated by the
[government]."
Here, when a
deficiency or
weakness was
identified in a
staffing plan, it
was because the
proposed staffing
was less than the
level the government
found to be
necessary to perform
the requirement in
its undisclosed
estimate, even where
the variation
appeared to be
de minimis in
comparison to the
overall requirement.
In every instance,
the government
mechanically applied
its undisclosed
staffing estimates
to the offerors'
proposed staffing to
evaluate and
determine the
acceptability of the
proposals. Moreover,
the government
applied a stricter
level of scrutiny to
the protesters'
proposals. It
assessed
deficiencies against
the protesters'
proposals for even
minor deviations
from the undisclosed
staffing estimates,
but found weaknesses
when similar issues
were identified in
the awardee's
proposal. There was
no explanation of
record regarding the
apparently
inconsistent
conclusions
regarding the
adequacy of the
proposed staffing.
The Comptroller
General recommended
the government
reopen discussions
and, if the
undisclosed staffing
estimates reflected
actual minimum
requirements,
disclose the
estimates to all
offerors and solicit
revised proposals. (Orion
Technology, Inc., et
al.,
27 CGEN ¶113,862).