💡#govconthoughts: This GAO #bidprotest decision provides a cautionary reminder on page limits in government solicitations: failure to follow the page limits may result in losing an award opportunity.
This protest involved a challenge to the Agency's evaluation relating to page limits. Relevant here, the RFP included page limits for each volume: 1) technical - 50 (PDF); 2) management/staffing – 25 (PDF); 3) past performance – 50 (PDF); 4) price – none; and 5) solicitation, offer, award documents – none. For volume 1, the protester submitted a 70-page PDF, which included a cover page, a 19-page table of contents ("TOC"), and a 50-page narrative. For volume 2, the protester submitted a 37-page PDF.
During evaluations, the Agency evaluated 50 pages of the protester's volume 1 submission and 25 pages of volume 2. The protester received 7 deficiencies under volume 1 (failure to provide required information) and 1 deficiency under volume 2 (failure to answer a staffing approach question). As a result, the Agency found that the protester's technical factor was "unacceptable" and its management/staffing factor was "marginal." The Agency eliminated the protester from competition. The protest followed.
In its protest, the protester said the Agency's evaluation was flawed because it unreasonably concluded that its proposal exceeded the page limit. Specifically, the protester believed it was wrong for the Agency to include the cover pages and TOC for both volumes in its calculation. Had the Agency not erred, the protester would not have received deficiencies.
The Agency argued that it followed the RFP and reasonably excluded the excess pages from its evaluation. Specifically, for volume 1, the Agency said the protester’s failure to respond (within the page limit) to questions relating to two practical scenarios rendered the proposal unacceptable. Under volume 2, the Agency concluded that the first 25 pages of the proposal "did not include 'several substantive portions' of its proposed staffing approach," which resulted in a marginal rating.
GAO agreed with the Agency and found that the RFP "clearly established a 50-page Adobe PDF limit" for volume 1, which the RFP also said “shall consist” of a TOC and a narrative. Because the RFP required the TOC to be a part of the 50-page PDF limit, GAO said those pages could not be excluded. GAO also noted that the RFP said that the page limit applied to the PDF, as a whole, and that the Agency would not have used "50 (PDF)" to describe the page limit had it wanted to exclude the TOC.
Takeaway
Offerors should read page limits carefully. If a solicitation does not expressly state that the TOC (or other information) is excluded, offerors should seek clarification. Where an agency declines to provide clarity or simply points back to the RFP, offerors should not assume that a TOC will be excluded. As shown above, failure to follow page limits can have severe consequences, so beware.
#govcon #govconlaw #bidprotests
