On February 26, GAO denied the protest of Mission Analytics, Inc., challenging the award of a small business set-aside contract to ThunderCat Technology, LLC, explaining that “it is a firm’s responsibility to submit a well-written quotation.” The protest underscores the fact that proposals lacking sufficient detail and the requested information may be deemed technically unacceptable and ineligible for award. It is crucial that companies carefully review proposals before submission to ensure they cover all the requirements of an RFQ.

Background

On August 6, 2024, the Air Force issued a solicitation for a small business set-aside contract to provide technology upgrades to an auditorium. The solicitation advised offerors that “vendor[s] shall provide a detailed description and specification of the items included in the quote.” Further, “the information submitted must be sufficient for the Government to assess the technical capability of these items to fulfill the same or similar end results as the solicited specifications.”

In addition, the PWS required that “[t]he system must include a repeater ‘confidence-monitor,’ mounted to the ceiling of the facility and facing the presenter, to show the presenter what is on-screen without requiring the presenter to turn around.” The PWS also listed a number of materials to be quoted including “1 Mounting Solution to install a hanging repeater 55-inch ‘Confidence Monitor’ from the ceiling of the auditorium, facing the presenter” and “1 Samsung QE55T 55-inch Direct-Lit 4K LED Display to serve as ‘Confidence Monitor.’”

The contract was to be awarded to the offeror who provided the best value, considering both technical capabilities and price. The agency ultimately received 17 quotations: one from ThunderCat and two from Mission Analytics. The Air Force eliminated both of Mission Analytics’ proposals after finding them technically unacceptable because the quotes failed to adequately explain where the confidence monitor would be placed or how the installation would occur. Additionally, Mission Analytics did not explicitly state that the monitor would be mounted as shown in the examples provided by the agency.

Protest Arguments

Mission Analytics challenged the award, arguing that the Air Force’s evaluation was unreasonable and that it failed to properly evaluate the awardee’s quotation for price reasonableness. The protestor argued that its quotation was sufficiently detailed, and noted that technicians would be on-site to mount the monitor and that an HDMI distribution amplifier would “duplicate the wall signal to the confidence monitor.”

In addition, as part of Mission Analytics’ Buy American Act certification, the protestor stated it would provide a “55in UHD Confidence Monitor.”

GAO agreed with the agency, concluding that “it is a firm’s responsibility to submit a well-written quotation with adequately detailed information that clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements.” While Mission Analytics identified the type of monitor and mounting solution it would use, the GAO concluded that the agency’s determination that it “failed to provide sufficient information regarding the placement of the confidence monitor” was unobjectionable.

Going Forward

Contractors must follow the solicitation’s instructions to a tee or risk ineligibility. GAO affirmed the long-standing principle that “[a]gencies are not required to infer information from an inadequately detailed proposal or to supply information that the protester elected not to provide.”

This GAO decision reminds contractors that it is their responsibility to submit a well-drafted proposal and ensure it complies with solicitation requirements.

Please contact the author if you have any questions about how this GAO decision will affect your business.