United States: November 2018 Bid Protest Roundup

Last Updated: December 10 2018
Article by Sandeep N. Nandivada and Locke Bell

For this month's bid protest roundup, we have identified four diverse bid protest decisions coming out of the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The first two, CDO Technologies and Facility Services, remind would-be protesters of the dangers that may lie in waiting for a complete picture of the facts before filing or otherwise failing to diligently pursue a protest. We then discuss McCann-Erickson, a reminder that just because you've given something to agency evaluators does not mean it will be considered if it's not in your proposal. And lastly, we examine the GAO's interpretation of domestic preference laws in Mechanix Wear.

  • CDO Technologies, Inc., B-416989, Nov. 1, 2018

In CDO, the protester challenged a task order award on the grounds that the agency conducted an unreasonable price realism evaluation and failed to adequately assess the performance risk related to the awardee's proposed price. In particular, the protester alleged that the awardee's total proposed price was unrealistically low and would require the awardee to slash incumbent salaries, which would ultimately endanger performance.

In response to a request for debriefing, the agency revealed the awardee's price, technical, and past performance ratings, and responded to several questions concerning the agency's evaluation. These questions included specific questions from the protester about the agency's price realism evaluation. For example, the protester inquired about the agency's intent for offerors to propose 40 full-time equivalent ("FTE") employees for the core labor CLIN, and whether offerors could propose fewer FTEs. The agency responded that it intended for 40 FTEs to perform the CLIN. The protester also asked whether the agency prepared an independent government cost estimate ("IGCE") and how the awardee's price compared to the IGCE. The agency responded that it had conducted a price realism analysis in accordance with the solicitation and determined the awardee's price was realistic.

According to the protester, approximately one month after the agency closed the debriefing, the awardee began contacting the protester's incumbent personnel with employment offers representing a decrease in compensation of roughly 25% when compared to incumbent salaries. Armed with this knowledge, the protester filed a protest at the GAO within 10 days of learning of the awardee's job offers.

The GAO dismissed the protest as untimely. In dismissing the protest, the GAO rejected the protester's argument that knowledge of the awardee's total evaluated price was, alone, insufficient to provide the basis for a valid protest ground because the protester would have to speculate regarding the basis for the difference in price between the protester and the awardee. The GAO held that although it does not consider purely speculative protest arguments, that general rule does not mean that the GAO will not consider, or that a protester should not allege, protest grounds that are based on "reasonable and credible inferenced based on the information available to the protester."

The GAO found that the protester's allegations ultimately were premised on a comparison between the protester's proposed price and that of the awardee, and that the protester had sufficient knowledge to raise this allegation based on the award notice and debriefing. In fact, the GAO observed that the protester's debriefing questions betrayed its argument it lacked sufficient information to protest, as they unequivocally demonstrated that the protest was aware that the "the likely difference in the proposals' respective prices related to the offerors' proposed compensation for core labor." Accordingly, reminding the protester that "a firm may not delay filing a protest until it is certain that it is in a position to detail all of the possible separate grounds of protest," GAO dismissed the protest in its entirety.

Key Takeaway: Do not let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good." Although protesters generally should avoid speculative protest grounds, protesters should not wait to file protests until all facts are known. Reasonable and credible inferences based on known facts, if uncontradicted, can provide a viable basis for protest.

  • Facility Servs. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, No. 18-1224C (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 2018).

Facility Services concerns a protester's request for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction ("PI") to enjoin the government from truncating a bridge contract and accelerating the phase-in of a follow-on contract.

The plaintiff was the incumbent contractor providing installation support services under a bridge contract for the U.S. Army. On September 17, 2018, the government awarded a follow on contract to a different contractor. Thereafter, on October 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a protest at the Court of Federal Claims challenging the award and requesting a TRO and PI.1 In requesting emergency relief, the plaintiff alleged that the government was attempting to cut short the bridge contract, which was not set to expire until December 13, 2018, and instead accelerate the transition to the follow-on contractor.

The Court of Federal Claims denied the request for emergency relief, noting that the plaintiff had conflated two distinct contract issues in prosecuting its motion. The Court observed that while the underlying bid protest concerned the solicitation and evaluation process for the follow-on contract for installation support services, the plaintiff's request for emergency relief appeared to relate to the government's obligation to allow the plaintiff to complete its performance of the bridge contract.

To the extent the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief related to the award of the follow-on contract, the Court found that it was untimely. Following the government's award decision on September 17, 2018, the plaintiff signed a Joint Status Report that explicitly acknowledged the government's intention to phase in the awardee's performance before the expiration of the bridge contract. The Joint Status Report also stated that the plaintiff did not seek to prevent the government from moving forward with its award. Nevertheless, the plaintiff ultimately allowed six weeks to lapse before seeking injunctive relief. Although the plaintiff argued it needed documents in the administrative record before it could determine whether emergency relief was warranted, the Court found this justification for delay untenable, as the plaintiff still waited another three weeks after the agency filed the record to file its motion for emergency relief.

The Court similarly found the plaintiff had no basis for emergency relief with respect to the bridge contract. The Court noted that to the extent the plaintiff was challenging the government's actions with respect to the bridge contract – which the Court believed was the plaintiff's actual intention – such a challenge to contract administration was not within the Court's bid protest jurisdiction. Rather, the proper avenue for such a dispute was to file a claim pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for emergency relief.

Key Takeaway: Facility Services offers a good reminder to contractors to keep protest and contract administration issues separate. It also demonstrates that although the Court of Federal Claims does not have GAO's strict timeliness rules, the Court will not tolerate clear failures to diligently prosecute protests.

  • McCann-Erickson USA, Inc., B-414787.2, Nov. 14, 2018

Those following the GAO's bid protest docket are frequently reminded that the Government can have a strict hand when rejecting proposals for things that, in a commercial setting, would appear trivial. The advertising giant McCann Erickson (think "I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke" and "Army Strong") learned this lesson the hard way recently when competing for the Army's latest 10-year, $4 billion advertising and marketing services contract.

In fact, the firm had its proposal rejected twice in this procurement – first in the Agency's initial "compliance review," and then, after a successful protest, a second time when the firm accidentally filed its final proposal revision without a disc containing material portions of its cost/price proposal. The firm, reportedly upon finding this disc in an employee's computer and recognizing it must have been omitted, called the contracting officer to explain and mailed the disc to the agency immediately, with it arriving the day after final proposals were due. The agency refused to open the package or consider the documents on the disc inside. Relying only on McCann Erickson's incomplete cost/price proposal, the Army evaluators determined they could not perform a meaningful cost realism analysis, and the agency rejected McCann Erickson's proposal on that basis.

At the GAO, McCann Erickson conceded it failed to include critical information in its final proposal, and appears not to have challenged the Army's refusal to consider its forgotten disc. Instead, it argued the Agency had all the information it needed to evaluate McCann Erickson's proposal in the materials it submitted during discussions. The GAO was not persuaded for three reasons:

First, the GAO noted discrepancies between McCann Erickson's total evaluated cost/price in its discussion materials and that in its final proposal revision. McCann Erickson argued that this difference was attributable to its removal of a certain cost element, but the GAO found no contemporaneous evidence to support this claim. The GAO also referenced other discrepancies noted in the cost evaluators' memoranda that it said were not explained in the contemporaneous record.

Second, the GAO noted McCann Erickson had made changes to its technical proposal in its final proposal revision. There was no way, the GAO reasoned, for the agency to evaluate these technical changes – and their potential impact to McCann Erickson's total cost/price without a complete cost/price proposal included with the firm's final proposal revision.

Third, and finally, the GAO noted the Army had repeatedly warned McCann Erickson that the agency would not consider information included in discussion responses that was not also included in an offeror's final proposal revision. In this regard, the GAO repeated some advice from the agency that all offerors would do well to remember in any procurement: "Do not assume that the Government will attempt to trace back through the data that was received as a result of Discussions in an attempt to evaluate the revised Cost/Price Volume."

For these reasons, the GAO found no basis to object to the Agency's refusal to consider the disc McCann Erickson initially forgot to include or the (purportedly) comparable information in McCann Erickson's discussion responses. The protest was denied and McCann Erickson's exclusion from the competition upheld.

Key Takeaways: It is critical that offerors check and double-check all proposal submissions to ensure they comply exactly with the content and format requirements in the solicitation. When it comes time to submit final proposal revisions, it is also critical to ensure all changes responding to the agency's evaluation notices and all information included in an offeror's formal responses are actually captured in the final proposal itself. Further, offerors should carefully read through their entire revised proposal to ensure all changes are carried throughout the document consistently, even to affected areas the agency may have omitted in its evaluation notices. Otherwise, you may risk elimination or a negative evaluation for easily correctible errors.

  • Mechanix Wear, Inc., B-416704; B-416704.2, Nov. 19, 2018

At times, the GAO is asked to weigh in on the United States' few but often labyrinthine domestic-preference statutes and regulations, in particular where an agency may be applying them in an overly restrictive manner. Mechanix Wear is a good example of such a case, in that it attempts to navigate a confusing series of cross-referencing regulations and also deals with a fairly obscure material one might not expect to be the subject of federal regulation: pickled-state goat/kidskin.2 Specifically, the GAO found that the Department of Defense cannot require items made of goat or kidskins – or any other of the materials designated in the Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR") as "nonavailable articles" for purposes of the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 8301 et seq. – to be sourced domestically on the basis of the Berry Amendment, 10 U.S.C. § 2533a, alone. Let's unpack that a little.

The Berry Amendment, enacted in 1941 to ensure U.S. troops in World War II wore uniforms and ate food produced wholly in the United States, now prohibits the Department of Defense from spending money on food, clothing, tents, other items made from fibers and yarns, or hand tools that have not been "grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced" in the United States. The statute identifies a number of exceptions, including for such items where the Secretary of Defense "determines that satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity . . . cannot be procured as and when needed at United States market prices."

The Buy American Act separately requires all Federal agencies to implement formal preferences for goods manufactured, mined, or produced in the United States when purchasing certain supplies. As with the Berry Amendment, the Buy American Act also contains an exception for articles that are not made in "sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities" and are not of a "satisfactory quality." Regulators have generated a list, at FAR 25.104(a), of articles that have been determined to be "nonavailable" for these purposes: among many other things, bamboo shoots, talc, swords, and, as relevant in Mechanix Wear, goat and kidskins. By regulation, this list also serves to identify items that fall within the Berry Amendment's nonavailability exception, i.e., the provisions in the Department of Defense FAR Supplement ("DFARS") implementing the Berry Amendment state unambiguously that they "do[] not apply . . . to items listed in section 25.104(a) of the [FAR]." DFARS 252.225-7012(c); see also DFARS 225.7002-2(c).

In Mechanix Wear, the Defense Logistics Agency ("DLA") was defending its requirement that all goat and kidskin be sourced domestically for its procurement of up to one million touchscreen-compatible combat gloves. The agency recognized these articles were facially exempt from the requirements of the Buy American Act and Berry Amendment, but argued that because regulation related to the Buy American Act requires a contracting officer to conduct market research on available domestic sources before relying on the list in FAR 25.104(a), the same applies when considering the list for purposes of the Berry Amendment.

Mechanix Wear, a small glove producer in Valencia, California, disagreed. It argued that the plain text of the Berry Amendment regulations exempted all articles listed in FAR 25.104(a) and made no reference to the Buy American Act's market research requirement. Without any regulatory requirement that goat or kidskins be purchased from domestic sources, DLA's requirement was unduly restrictive of competition, Mechanix Wear argued, because it was not reasonably necessary to meet the agency's needs. The GAO agreed, finding nothing in the language of the DFARS anticipating an override of this list of exceptions to the Berry Amendment where a contracting officer finds an item to be domestically available in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the agency's need. Thus, because DLA had failed to identify any other reasonable basis for the restriction, the protest was sustained.

Key Takeaway: Pay close attention to domestic sourcing requirements in solicitations and contracts, and be aware of the many exceptions that may apply. These regulations can be very tricky to navigate, and we suggest engaging early with legal counsel to address any questions about compliance.3 And if you find the Government insisting on overly restrictive domestic sourcing requirements without a statutory or regulatory basis, you may want to consider raising your concerns in a pre-award protest. In that case, keep in mind all such protests must be filed prior to the submission of proposals, lest it run the risk of being dismissed as untimely.

Footnote

1 The plaintiff commenced its proceeding before the Court on August 15, 2018, through a pre-award protest alleging solicitation improprieties. Following the agency's award decision on September 17, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to challenge the award decision.

2 Kidskin as in the skin of a kid goat.

3 We have published on this blog a high-level guide for determining compliance with certain domestic preference laws, including the Buy American Act. This guide is helpful, but it only begins to scratch the surface.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Sandeep N. Nandivada
Locke Bell
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions