|
FAR
15.607: Unsolicited proposals |
|
Comptroller
General - Key Excerpts |
Rante submitted an unsolicited proposal to the agency to
“provide the IRS with the appropriate tools to address IRS
technology limitations” with regard to foreign account and asset
reporting. AR, Tab 4, Rante’s Proposal, at 47-48. The IRS
received Rante’s unsolicited proposal on February 4, 2015, and
directed the proposal to the IRS’s Foreign Account and Tax
Compliance Act (FATCA) program management office (PMO) and its
International Data Management group for review. Contracting
Officer (CO) Statement at 1. The evaluators determined that the
proposal duplicated the functionality of an existing IRS Blanket
Purchase Agreement (BPA), which had been established in August
2014. CO Statement at 2; AR, Tab 7, Email from Information
Technology (IT) PMO (Feb. 11, 2015), at 1. Thus, the agency
concluded that the unsolicited proposal did not provide an
innovative or unique solution. Id.
On March 3, the IRS sent Rante a letter notifying the firm that
its proposal was neither innovative nor unique; that the agency
did not believe Rante’s proposal justified award on a
sole-source basis; and that the IRS had already deployed a
managed service application that provided FATCA partners with a
mechanism to secure automatic exchange of information. AR, Tab
5, Letter to Rante, at 1. Rante filed its protest with our
Office on March 4.
With regard to unsolicited proposals, the decision to make a
non-competitive award is one that is within the agency’s
discretion, and then only where the requirements of FAR §
15.607(b) are met. S.T. Research Corp., B-231752, Aug. 16, 1988,
88-2 CPD ¶ 152 at 1-2; Mine Safety Appliances Co., B-227839,
July 8, 1987, 87-2 CPD ¶ 24. Rante’s protest acknowledges that
it understands the discretion granted to agencies in this
regard. Comments at 22. Nevertheless, Rante challenges various
aspects of the agency’s underlying evaluation and disagrees with
the agency’s determination that its unsolicited proposal was
neither innovative nor unique.
We find no basis to review the agency’s determinations here.
Given that one of the objectives of our bid protest function is
to ensure full and open competition, we consider it
inappropriate, generally, to review a protest which would
mandate an agency to procure from a particular firm on a
sole-source basis. See S.T. Research Corp., supra; University of
Dayton Research Inst., B-220589, Jan. 30, 1986, 86-1 CPD ¶ 108;
DWK Systems Group, Ltd., B‑229647, Dec. 10, 1987. Since Rante’s
protest fails to provide our Office with a basis to deviate from
this general rule, we decline to consider the protester’s
allegations. 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.4(c)(4), (f) (protest must include a
detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for protest,
and the grounds stated must be legally sufficient).
The protest is dismissed. (Rante
Corporation B-411188: Jun 1, 2015) (pdf) |
|
|
Comptroller
General - Listing of Decisions |
|
For
the Government |
For
the Protester |
|
Rante Corporation B-411188: Jun 1,
2015 (pdf) |
|
|
|
