We persuaded the agency to take corrective action and re-evaluate our client’s proposal, resulting in award to our client.
Our client submitted a proposal in response to a solicitation for service support at multiple USAF installations. The solicitation required offerors to submit a technical experience volume that included a self-scored worksheet. Offerors were instructed to provide supporting documentation for each item claimed on the self-scored worksheet, which the agency would then validate. The solicitation explained that supporting documentation for each item should identify the item being claimed in the worksheet. In response to questions from bidders, the agency required offerors to provide “the signed front page of the contract award for validation” for each item claimed on the self-scored worksheet.
The agency informed our client that it had not been selected for award. If our client had received the points for one additional item on the self-scored worksheet, it would have exceeded the minimum and would have been selected. To substantiate its score for that item, our client had provided documentation along with the signed front page of the relevant contract. The agency determined that this documentation was insufficient because there was nothing on the face of the documentation that expressly tied the documentation to the signed front page of the accompanying contract, only our client’s representation.
We filed a protest at the GAO, arguing that the agency’s invalidation of the item was arbitrary and contrary to solicitation terms. Prior to the date for the agency report, the agency notified the GAO that it would take corrective action and reevaluate several items. As a result of our protest, our client was found acceptable and received a contract award.
