In its September 18, 2017 decision, the GAO sustained McCann-Erickson USA, Inc.’s (“McCann”) protest challenging the Army’s preliminary elimination of McCann’s proposal for advertising services on an acquisition valued up to $4 billion. After receiving numerous proposals the Army performed a “compliance review” aimed at thinning the number of proposals before applying the evaluation criteria detailed in the requests for proposals. McCann’s proposal was eliminated for alleged failures in following the proposal preparation instructions.
The GAO agreed McCann’s proposal did not comply with the exact format requested in the solicitation, but stated such problems were not sufficient, on their own, to exclude a proposal before taking a more substantive look at the proposal’s contents. This decision is supported by the fact that the solicitation gave no warning the Army would be taking such a harsh pass/fail look at compliance with proposal preparation instructions.
It certainly did not help that at least some of the alleged deficiencies of the proposal were found, by the GAO, to really be mistakes by the Army. The GAO walks through such examples including, the Army’s inability to search for McCann’s certifications in the system for award management database, despite being provided the correct name and code. The GAO also found the Army’s refusal to evaluate McCann’s price proposal submission because it was in PDF format rather than the requested Excel format was unreasonable. While previous GAO decisions have supporting an Agency’s harsh response to such unfollowed format requests, here the Army did not put forth any reason why submission in PDF format, rather than Excel, poised any problems.
This decision is not quite landmark, but does give push back to the government’s seemingly increasing use of “pre-evaluation…evaluations” in the face of an overwhelming number of proposals.
About the Author:
Tyler Freiberger is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting primarily focusing on employment law and litigation. He has successfully litigated employment issues before the EEOC, MSPB, local counties human rights commissions, the United States D.C. District Court, Maryland District Court, and the Eastern District of Virginia.