Update: Decision released in protest denial of Railroad Retirement Board computer engineering services task

“DIGEST- Protest challenging award to a higher technically rated, higher-priced vendor is denied where the solicitation provided that technical merit was essentially equal to price and the agency’s procurement record provided a reasonable basis for the award decision.”

“BACKGROUND – The RFP, issued on June 24, 2020, contemplated award of a fixed-price task order in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 1, 5. The RFP limited competition to vendors who hold contracts under Schedule 70 of the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) for the required services.1 Id. at 19.

The agency is seeking proposals from GSA schedule contract holders to implement Microsoft 365 design/build services in the Microsoft Government Community cloud.2 RFP at 4. The RFP advised prospective vendors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following factors: technical approach, project management plan, risk management plan, security plan, staffing plan, issue resolution, timeline, quality assurance surveillance plan, experience and qualifications of proposed staff, and past performance. 3 Id. at 32-33. The solicitation advised vendors that “[t]he relative importance between all non-cost factors combined AND cost or price is essentially the same.” Id. at 31. The solicitation also stated that in the event the proposals were determined to be essentially technically equal under the non-price factors, then award would be made on the basis of the lowest overall price. Id.

The agency received three proposals responding to the RFP. COS at 1. Thereafter, the agency established a competitive range consisting of the proposals of TrueTandem and Practical Solutions, and conducted discussions with those vendors. AR, Exh. 11, Amend. No. 3; COS at 5. When conducting discussions with Practical Solutions, the agency provided relevant questions and sought clarifications. At the conclusion of discussions, the agency evaluated TrueTandem’s proposal as exceeding the technical requirements at a total evaluated price of $2,607,852, while evaluating Practical Solutions’s proposal as meeting the technical requirements at a total evaluated price of $2,578,085. AR, Exh. 18, Price Evaluation (final offers) at 1160, 1161; Exh. 29, Unsuccessful Offeror Letter to Practical Solutions Inc. (Sept. 17, 2020) at 1263; COS at 3.

Based on its evaluation of the final revised proposals, the agency concluded that TrueTandem’s proposal provided the best overall value to the government, and selected that firm for award. AR, Exh. 27, Notice of Award (Sept. 17, 2020). This protest to our Office followed.”

“DISCUSSION – In its protest, Practical Solutions contends that the agency’s source selection decision was flawed because it resulted in award to a vendor whose price was higher than that of Practical Solutions, even though that vendor only had a slightly higher technical rating. As discussed below, we find no basis to sustain the protest.

Source selection officials have broad discretion to determine the manner and extent to which they will make use of evaluation results, and must use their own judgment to determine what the underlying differences between proposals might mean to successful performance of the contract. See ERC, Inc. B-407297, B-407297.2, Nov. 19, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 321 at 10. It is well established that adjectival ratings are only guides for intelligent decision making in the procurement process. Protection Strategies, Inc., B-414648.2, B-414648.3, Nov. 20, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 365 at 17. The essence of an agency’s evaluation is reflected in the evaluation record itself, not in the adjectival ratings. See Systems Eng’g Partners, LLC, B-412329, B-412329.2, Jan. 20, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 31 at 7.

Here, as noted above, the solicitation provided that all noncost factors combined and cost or price were essentially equal in weight. RFP at 31. Further, as also discussed above, Practical Solutions’s proposal received a lower technical rating than True Tandem’s proposal …”

“DECISION – Practical Solutions, Inc., a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a task order to TrueTandem, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 60RRBH20R0018, issued by the Railroad Retirement Board for computer engineering services.  The protester contends that the agency made an improper source selection decision by awarding the task order to TrueTandem based on that vendor’s higher technically rated and higher-priced proposal.

We deny the protest.”

Access the full 4-page report here.


This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Jackie Gilbert 6 months ago.

  • Author
  • #115480

    Replies viewable by members only


You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Questions?. Send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.


©2021 MileMarker10, LLC all rights reserved | Community and Member Guidelines | Privacy Policy | About G2Xchange FedCiv

Opportunities. Starting Points.

About our Data

The Vault is a listing of expiring contracts, task orders, etc. within a certain set of parameters, to include:

  • Have an initial total estimated contract value of $10 million or above
  • Federal Civilian Only – DHS, Transportation, Justice, Labor, Interior, Commerce, Energy, State, and Treasury Actions
  • NAICS codes include: 511210, 518210, 519130, 519190, 541511,
    541513, 541519, 541611, 541618,
    541690, 541720, 541990
  • Were modified within the last 12 calendar months
  • The data represented is based on information provided by the government

Who has access? Please note that ALL G2Xchange FedCiv Members will receive access to all basic and much of the advanced data. G2Xchange FedCiv Corporate Members will receive access to ALL Vault content (basic and advanced).

Feedback/Suggestions? Contact us at Vault@G2Xchange.com and let us know what you think. 

G2Xchange FedCiv

Log in with your credentials for G2Xchange FedCiv

Forgot your details?