Reasons for validating evaluation instruments dating love it
Further, because the solicitation is permissive rather than prescriptive, in that it provides that an agency might find unacceptable a quotation in which one or more contract line items was found to be significantly overstated or understated, we will not infer that the agency deemed Harmonias quotation unacceptable absent an express determination in the contemporaneous record. To the extent the agency did rely on adjusted price, however, such reliance would have been an improper use of a price realism analysis in the context of competition for a fixed‑price task order.The agency also contends that, if Harmonias price for CLIN [DELETED] was adjusted to a realistic level, Harmonias price would have been $[DELETED] higher than OSTs price. According to the agency, Harmonia would then have a higher price and lower technical score such that no tradeoff would be necessary. This argument, however, relies upon an improper use of a price realism analysis in the context of a fixed-price procurement. Where an RFQ contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract, or a fixed-price portion of a contract, an agency may, as here, provide in the solicitation for the use of a price realism analysis for the limited purpose of measuring an offerors understanding of the requirements or to assess the risk inherent in an offerors quotation. In sum, the record here does not indicate that the agency eliminated Harmonias quotation from consideration prior to its source selection decision.AR, Tab 8.b., Technical Recommendation Memorandum, at 2.While the record documents some concerns with Harmonias pricing for CLIN [DELETED], the record contains nothing indicating that, as the agency now argues, Harmonias quotation was rejected on that basis. Although the FAR does not use the term price realism, it states that cost realism analysis may be used to evaluate fixed-price proposals for purposes of assessing proposal risk, but not for the purpose of adjusting an offerors evaluated price. Because the record contains little discussion about price, it is unclear whether the agency actually relied upon an adjusted evaluated price for Harmonia when making its selection decision.
While the protester disagrees with the agencys conclusions, we find that the agency had a reasonable belief that vendors could offer brand name or equal items to meet the agencys needs.
While we do not address each of the protesters arguments, or variations thereof, we have considered all of the allegations and find that none provide a basis to sustain the protest. Agencies may only place orders with a vendor whose schedule contract contains the goods or services required to meet the agencys need under a solicitation. Institute, Inc., B-299456, May 21, 2007, 2007 CPD 105 at 4.
The FSS program directed and managed by GSA gives federal agencies a simplified process for obtaining commonly used commercial supplies and services. In FSS buys, as in other procurements, the determination of what the agency needs, and which products or services meet those needs is within the agencys discretion; we will not sustain a protest in this area unless the determination lacks a reasonable basis. Phoenix alleges that the agency failed to comply with the requirements of FAR subpart 8.4.
See Information Ventures, Inc., B‑299422, B‑299422.2, May 1, 2007, 2007 CPD 88 at 3. 21.0(a)(1); see also Onix Networking Corp., B‑411841, Nov. According to the record before us, the products that the agency purchased under this solicitation were listed under the Walking Point Farms GSA schedule. We therefore deny Phoenixs protest allegation that the agency purchased items that were not included on Walking Point Farms schedule contract. B-413833: Jan 5, 2017)The RFQ stated that BPAs would be established with the vendors whose quotations offer the best value to the government, considering (in descending order of importance) technical capability, past performance, small business participation plan, and price. Under the technical capability factor, vendors were instructed to submit the following:gov Solutions maintains that the VA erroneously found its quotation unacceptable.
We find that the agency reasonably met the requirements of FAR subpart 8.4, and deny Phoenixs protest that the agency failed to comply with the FAR requirements to utilize the FSS. AR, Tab 7, Walking Point Farms Quotation; Intervenor Supp. The firm argues that the language in its cover letter met the requirement to provide a certifying statement that it can meet all of the service requirements identified in the statement of work.