• R.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Offerors: Don't Introduce New Weaknesses in Proposals After Discussions

In a recent bid protest, the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) identified and notified an offeror of 26 weaknesses in its proposal during discussions. The offeror made extensive revisions in its Final Proposal Revisions, correcting many weaknesses, but introducing seven new weaknesses and causing a loss of the procurement. SigNet Tech., Inc., B-417335, May 28, 2019. The protest and result stand for the care that offerors must take to address only identified weaknesses, and not introduce new weaknesses after discussions.

SigNet protested a task order for the installation of a surveillance system in Kabul Afghanistan. SigNet’s proposal was ultimately rated only “marginal” against the winner’s “good” technical rating. The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) noted that discussions must be meaningful and sufficiently detailed so as to lead an offeror into areas of its proposal requiring amplification or revision in a manner to materially enhance the offeror’s potential for receiving award.

The Corps issued a detailed letter to SigNet identifying 22 weaknesses in its technical proposal plus four significant weaknesses. The Corps also conducted oral discussion and addressed the weaknesses. In making its Final Proposal Revisions, SigNet adequately addressed 15 of the 22 weaknesses and all four significant weaknesses. However, the Corps found that SigNet had introduced six additional weaknesses and one new significant weakness in its Final Proposal Revision. SigNet’s argument that the conduct of the discussions were inadequate was without merit—SigNet had caused the problem itself by creating new areas of weakness and significant weakness. Although unstated in the decision, SigNet had apparently changed areas not found to be weaknesses in its initial proposal. This caused the loss of the procurement and the protest.

The Takeaway. In any Final Proposal Revision, it is dangerous to make significant technical changes to areas that the agency did not identify in the discussions. You run the risk of introducing new weaknesses, just as SigNet did. Only identified weaknesses should be corrected.

For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes.

7 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Informal Agency Protests: A Reminder

Formal agency protests must be submitted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 33.103, which sets out specific rules, procedures and requirements. There is a simpler way to protest

Typed Name is Acceptable for Contract Disputes Act

A recent decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) held that as long as a mark (such as a typed signature) purporting to act as a signature may be traced back to the individua

Constructive Notice of Contracting Actions

“Constructive” is defined as “legally imputed; existing by virtue of legal fiction though not existing in fact.” Blacks Law Dict. (Tenth Ed. 2014). Several types of constructive actions occur in gove

The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2020 Richard D. Lieberman