United States: March 2018 Bid Protest Roundup

In this roundup of interesting Government Accountability Office (GAO) protests released in March, we take a look at (1) the importance of having an adequate agency record; (2) the effect of asserting no data rights in a proposal; (3) the need for a protester to challenge the correct factors in its initial protest; and (4) an out-of-scope task order.

Mantech Advanced Systems International Inc., B-415497, Jan. 18, 2018: An Insufficient Agency Record

GAO sustained a protest that claimed that the agency's best-value source selection decision was flawed, because the record lacked evidence of an adequate best-value tradeoff consideration.

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA or Agency) issued a task order RFP for the development and enhancement of enterprise applications. The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate technical management, program objectives, and price, in descending order of importance. After receiving seven proposals, DIA conducted discussions and accepted final proposals. The awardee received an overall technical/risk rating of acceptable, while Mantech's proposal was rated outstanding. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) determined that although Mantech's technical proposal was superior to the awardee's, it was not worth the almost $75 million price premium, and awardee's proposal clearly demonstrates that they can do the work.

Mantech protested the agency's best-value tradeoff decision, arguing that the SSA improperly converted the best-value procurement into a lowest-price technically acceptable (LPTA) and that the agency failed to explain why Mantech's superior technical approach did not merit the cost premium.

Although a best-value tradeoff does allow an agency to select a lower-price, lower-rated proposal, the agency must explain the trade-off rationale. GAO found that the record failed to provide an explanation for why the protester's significantly higher technical proposal was not worth the price premium, especially when the RFP stated that technical considerations are significantly more important than price. The record also failed to provide a meaningful comparison among the proposals, instead of just reciting the ratings.

Takeaway: This is a classic case of an insufficient agency record resulting in a sustained protest. Disappointed offerors should ensure that the agency record contains sufficient explanation of best-value tradeoff decisions and may want to challenge bald assertions that their better technical proposal is not worth the extra cost.

VT Halter Marine, B-415510.2, et al., Jan. 24, 2018: No Data Rights Assertions Means Unlimited Rights

GAO denied a protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals because the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.1 The protest ground regarding inadequate discussions was also denied because the record showed that the agency conveyed its concerns to the protester during discussions, and the protester failed to address those concerns.

The Department of the Army issued an RFP for the manufacture of maneuver support vessels which contemplated award of a fixed-price IDIQ on a best-value tradeoff basis. The RFP advised offerors that the agency would evaluate proposals based on the following factors in decreasing importance: (1) technical performance, (2) maturity, (3) production readiness, (4) total evaluated cost/price, and (5) small business participation. The agency received a number of proposals, conducted discussions, received final proposal revisions, and determined that award should go to Vigor Works LLC. VT Halter Marine protested.

The protester asserted that the agency unreasonably gave a $39 million price credit to the awardee because the awardee proposed to provide unlimited data rights in the software furnished to the government. The protester argued that it was unreasonable to assume that the awardee intended to provide unlimited data rights based only on the awardee's pricing worksheet because no company would offer its products with unlimited data rights. Instead, the agency does not really know what data rights it will be receiving from the awardee and was unreasonable in failing to appreciate this risk. GAO found no merit in this argument. When an offeror does not put data rights restrictions on its proposal, it is reasonable for the agency to understand that the offeror is offering unlimited rights. The RFP advised offerors that the agency would consider a price credit for the potential value of data rights offered.

GAO declined to consider the protester's challenges to the agency's assessment of individual weaknesses in its proposal due to lack of prejudice. The protester also argued that agency discussions with offerors were unequal. Specifically, while the agency pointed out its primary concern with the protester's model, it pointed out a different concern with the awardee's model that also applied to the protester.

GAO found that it was reasonable for the agency to focus on its primary concern for the risk associated with the proximity of the water jet inlet to the sea floor. There is no reasonable basis to determine that being advised that the distance between the water jet inlets and the sea floor was less than the water jet impeller diameter would have caused protester to change its proposal, especially considering that they did not change it after being repeatedly told about a separate weakness. Agencies are not required to "spoon feed" offerors every weakness that may be improved in their proposal, and protester failed to adequately address those weaknesses that the agency did raise. GAO denied the protest.

Takeaway: Offerors should be aware that by not asserting data rights in a proposal, you may be proposing unlimited data rights. Additionally, an offeror that does not adequately respond to the information it receives in discussions will have difficulty challenging information it did not receive due to lack of prejudice.

Granite State Manufacturing, B-415730; B-415730.3, Feb. 23, 2018: Ensure You Challenge the Discriminating Factors

Allard Nazarian Group d/b/a Granite State Manufacturing (GSM) protested its exclusion from the competitive range established by the Naval Sea Systems Command Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (the Agency).

In January 2017, the Agency issued an RFP for anti-submarine warfare combat systems in which it informed potential offerors that award would be based on a best-value tradeoff. GSM was eliminated from the competitive range because its proposal was deemed unacceptable due to an extremely high price. When GSM received its debriefing on November 21, 2017, they were informed by the CO that "[t]he costs/prices proposed by GSM are so significantly high that it cannot reasonably be expected that it can lower its price during negotiations to a degree where it [...] would have a reasonable chance for award."

GSM protested to GAO on November 24, 2017 and supplemented its protest on December 1, 2017. These initial and supplemental filings protested the agency's evaluation of GSM's technical proposal and past performance, but did not challenge the agency's finding that GSM's proposed costs/prices were too high. GSM did not address the issue of price until after the release of the Agency Record, when the Memorandum of Law pointed out that GSM failed to address its exorbitant price. This was too late, according to GAO. GSM knew that its proposal was excluded based on its high price when it was debriefed on November 21, 2017. Therefore, its argument—over a month later—on the issue of price is untimely, and GAO refused to consider it. Furthermore, because the extremely high price was the reason GSM was excluded from the competitive range, GSM could not be competitively prejudiced by any other alleged errors in the procurement, and GAO did not reach these arguments.

Takeaway: Protesters should make sure that they are challenging the discriminating factors for their exclusion from the competition. If a debriefing tells a protester that it lost for reason X, make sure that the protest addresses X.

Western Pilot Service, et al., B-415732 et al., Mar. 6, 2018: Out-of-Scope Task Orders

GAO sustained a pre-award protest brought by several potential offerors that argued that a solicitation for a task order sought services outside the scope of the relevant IDIQ contract. The agency had canceled its original solicitation following two protests because it lacked time to reevaluate proposals and make new award determinations before the 2017 wildfire season.

The Department of the Interior (DoI or Agency) issued a task order RFP for exclusive-use single engine air tanker (SEAT) flight services for all needs during the 2017 wildfire season under the on-call IDIQ contracts. An exclusive-use RFP for these services required the contractor's aircraft and services to be reserved for exclusive use during specific time periods in specific locations. On the other hand, on-call contracts gave contractors the option to accept or decline Agency's request for contractor's aircraft and services. The on-call procurement was considered for "surge capability" during the wildfire season.

Several potential offerors protested the task order RFP for exclusive-use services, arguing that the services required under an exclusive-use contract are beyond the scope of the on-call IDIQ contracts because the services are materially different. Although GAO generally will not hear protests of task orders valued under $10 million, a challenge to the scope of a task order remains within GAO's jurisdiction regardless of value.

GAO examined whether the task order in question is materially different from the contract, which may be found by "reviewing the circumstances attending the original procurement; any changes in the type of work, performance period, and costs between the contract as awarded and the order as issued; and whether the original solicitation effectively advised offerors of the potential for the type of orders issued."

GAO found that the task order RFP was materially different from the on-call contracts, in spite of the similarity of the services. Protesters could not have anticipated a task order competition for extended, guaranteed periods of performance when they submitted proposals for the on-call IDIQ contract, and they were not on notice that their on-call pricing would be treated as a ceiling price for a later task order for exclusive-use work. Also, the Agency's own historical procurement record shows that they believed these services to be distinct, as they previously contracted for them separately.

Takeaway: Even a task order for seemingly identical services may be out of scope if the agency has historically distinguished them, or the terms of the services are materially different.


1 MoFo attorneys D. Specht and J. Devecchio represented the intervenor/awardee in this case: Vigor Works LLC.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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.


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.


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