|
DLAD
52.215-9023: DLAD Clause Reverse Auctions |
|
Comptroller
General - Key Excerpts |
Active Headsets raises four primary challenges to DLA’s
conducting of the reverse auction and resulting award
decision. First, the protester alleges that Acousticom
failed to participate in the reverse auction, thus
rendering the awardee ineligible for award under the terms
of the RFP. See Protest at 6-7. Second, the protester
alleges that the auction system provided misleading
information because it designated the protester as the
“lead” bidder with regard to certain aspects of its bid,
and, thus effectively induced the protester into not
placing additional bids. See id. In a related allegation,
Active Headsets argues that the auction website’s use of
the undefined data field “start price” was ambiguous and
did not advise offerors that the agency would pre-load
offerors’ prices from their initial proposals as the
starting bids for the reverse auction. See Protester’s
Response to Request for Dismissal (Nov. 18, 2014) at 2.
Finally, the protester alleges that, notwithstanding that
a reverse auction was conducted, DLA made its award
decision based on the offerors’ initial proposals, in
violation of DLAD clause 52.215-9023(a), which states that
the reverse auction will be used “to establish the final
offered prices from each Offeror.” See Protest at 6-7.
In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation,
our Office will not reevaluate proposals, nor substitute
our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of
proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion.
Management Sys. Int’l, Inc., B-409415, B-409415.2, Apr. 2,
2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 117 at 5. Rather, we will review the
record only to determine whether the agency’s evaluation
was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation
criteria and with applicable procurement statutes and
regulations. Id. Here, we find that the record supports
the reasonableness of the agency’s conducting of the
reverse auction and resulting award decision.
First, contrary to the protester’s argument, the record
provided by DLA establishes that Acousticom participated
in the reverse auction. AR, Tab 11, Procurex Event Bidding
Detail Report, at 2. In fact, both the awardee and the
protester completed the registration for the reverse
auction. Id. As discussed below, neither party submitted a
bid during the reverse auction, and the protester does not
cite to any requirement in the solicitation or DLAD that
required offerors to place any bids during the auction.
Thus, there is no basis to find that the awardee should
have been eliminated from the competition on the ground
that it failed to participate in the reverse auction.
Second, the record demonstrates that the reverse auction
system utilized by DLA put bidders on notice regarding the
status of their bids, as required by DLAD clause
52.215-9023(e). That clause requires that the system
designate offers either as “lead,” meaning the current low
price in the auction, or “not lead,” meaning not the
current low price in the auction. RFP at 28. Here, the
system contained a link titled “View Lead/Not Lead
Bidder,” which showed a bidder’s current bid, the lowest
bid, and the bidder’s relative position, i.e., “lead” or
“not lead”. See AR, Tab 12, Screenshots from Procurex
System, at 2, 3. Although the system indicated that the
protester was the “lead” bidder with regard to the
escalation years, it also showed that for the overall
contract, Active Headsets’ bid was “not lead.” Id. at 2.
Thus, the system adequately put the protester on notice
that it was not the “lead” bidder for the overall price.
Also, the record shows that bidders were on notice that
their initial proposed prices would be utilized as the
starting bids for the reverse auction. The initial email
that Active Headsets received after registering with the
auction system stated: “Your Solicitation response price(s)
will be pre-entered by the DLA Buyer as part of the event
set up.” AR, Tab 10, Email from Procurex System
Administrator (Sept. 11, 2014), at 1. In light of this
express notice and the fact that the system clearly
reflected that Active Headsets was not the overall “lead”
bidder, we do not think that the data field “start price”
was ambiguous. On this record, we conclude that the
protester was on notice that it was not the overall lead
bidder, and that the offerors’ initial proposals would be
pre-loaded as the starting bids for the reverse auction.
Finally, Active Headsets contends that DLA improperly used
the offerors’ prices from their initial proposals, and did
not obtain bids through the reverse auction. The only
price bids received by the agency, however, were those
contained in the offerors’ initial proposals, as neither
party placed any bids during the reverse auction or
otherwise revised their initial proposals in response to
the agency’s request for final proposal revisions. See AR,
Tab 11, Procurex Event Bidding Detail Report, at 2
(reflecting that each bidder made only one bid, which were
the offerors’ pre-loaded initial proposals); AR, Tab 14,
Email from CO (Oct. 30, 2014), at 1. As no bids other than
the offerors’ initial proposals were received, the agency
reasonably used the offerors’ initial pricing as the basis
for its evaluation and award. To the extent the protester
argues that the failure to receive additional bids during
the reverse action violated the terms of DLAD clause
52.215-9023, we do not find this argument to present a
valid basis for protest. That clause provides that an
“offeror’s final auction price at the close of the reverse
auction will be considered its final proposal revision.”
DLAD clause 52.215-9023(f). We are not aware of any
requirement, and the protester cites to none, that an
offeror must submit a revised proposal in the absence of
any change to the terms of the solicitation. Here, both
the awardee and protester stood behind their originally
submitted proposals. (Active
Headsets, Inc. B-410764: Feb 2, 2015) (dpf) |
|
|
Comptroller
General - Listing of Decisions |
|
For
the Government |
For
the Protester |
|
Active Headsets, Inc.
B-410764: Feb 2, 2015 (dpf) |
|
|
|
