An agency acted improperly by inviting the ultimate contract awardee to revise its pricing, but not affording that same opportunity to a competitor–even though the awardee didn’t amend its pricing in response to the agency’s invitation.
According to a recent GAO bid protest decision, merely providing the awardee the opportunity to amend its pricing was erroneous, regardless of whether the awardee took advantage of that opportunity.
The GAO’s decision in Rotech Healthcare, Inc., B-413024 et al. (Aug. 17, 2016) involved a VA solicitation for home oxygen and durable medical equipment. The solicitation contemplated award to the offeror providing the best value to the government, including consideration of four non-price factors and price.
After evaluating initial proposals, the VA opened discussions with Rotech Healthcare, Inc. and Lincare, Inc. on July 28, 2015. The VA’s discussions letter asked both offerors to submit final revised price proposals no later than July 30, 2015.
Rotech responded by submitting a revised price proposal on July 29, 2015. Lincare responded by stating that it stood by its original price.
On March 7, 2016, the VA contracting specialist sent an email only to Lincare. The VA’s email stated:
The subject solicitation closed more than 6 months ago, therefore the VA would like your company to verify its offer pricing before a final award decision is made for this contract. Attached is Lincare’s price proposal for quick reference. Please respond either confirming the original price offer, or provide alternate price information by 6:00 pm EST on March 9th, 2016.
Lincare responded to the VA’s email by stating that it (again) chose not to revise its price proposal.
The VA assigned similar non-price scores to the proposals of Lincare and Rotech. However, Lincare’s proposal was lower-priced. The VA awarded the contract to Lincare.
Rotech filed a GAO bid protest challenging the award. Rotech argued, among other things, that the VA had improperly opened discussions only with Lintech. Rotech contended that, had it been provided a similar opportunity, it “reasonably could have submitted lower pricing,” thereby enhancing its chances of award.
In response, the VA pointed out that Lincare did not alter its price proposal. The VA also contended that Rotech was not prejudiced by any error committed by the VA, because Lincare was already the lower-priced offeror.
The GAO wrote that “the acid test of whether discussions have occurred is whether the offeror has been afforded an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal.” And where “an agency conducts discussions with one offeror, it must conduct discussions with all offerors in the competitive range.”
In this case, “ecause Lincare was given the opportunity of revising its price, we think that the agency’s invitation constituted discussions,” and “Rotech was improperly excluded” from those discussions. Rotech’s statement that it “reasonably could have submitted lower pricing” had it been given the opportunity was sufficient to demonstrate that Rotech may have been prejudiced by the VA’s error. The GAO sustained Rotech’s protest.
Agencies have a great deal of discretion in many aspects of the procurement process, but not when it comes to discussions. As the Rotech Healthcare case demonstrates, when an agency invites one offeror to revise its proposal, that same opportunity must be extended to every other offeror in the competitive range.