In a proposal response, the offerors are often cautioned to adhere to the EXACT requirements of the RFP. One too many pages? They can throw you out. Font not the size required? They can decide not to review your proposal. But what about file format? If the government requires a certain type of file format for a solicitation, but the offeror submits a proposal in a different file format, what happens? This GAO opinion answers that question in favor of the offeror, but it should not be considered a rule for contractors to ignore file format requirements.
In McCann-Erickson USA, Inc., B-414787 (Comp. Gen. Sept. 18, 2017), McCann-Erickson USA, Inc. (ME) submitted a proposal to provide advertising services to the Army on a potential 10-year IDIQ contract worth up to $4 billion. The Army said they would evaluate proposals “on a best-value basis, considering cost/price, along with several non-cost/price evaluation criteria.”
The solicitation had a two-phase evaluation process. Phase one would be based on written proposals. Phase two would involve an oral presentation for all proposals that were deemed acceptable. Phase one involved “a substantive evaluation of written proposals considering cost/price and the non-cost/price evaluation factors with a focus on the adequacy of the offerors’ response–and the feasibility of their approach–to fulfilling the requirements of the RFP.”
Instead of using the two-phase review process, the Army conducted what it termed a “compliance review” of proposals, which consisted of reviewing and eliminating proposals based on “informational deficiencies” in what GAO described as a “superficial, perfunctory review of the ME proposal to identify instances where ME allegedly did not fully comply with the instructions for proposal preparation.”
So, what did the GAO identify as “information deficiencies”? ME using the wrong file format was one of them. The Army rejected the proposal, in part, “for submitting its cost/price proposal as a portable document file (.pdf) rather than as a Microsoft Excel (.xls) spreadsheet.”
The GAO stated that, “[t]he record shows that the agency did not substantively evaluate the ME cost/price proposal, choosing not to calculate the firm’s total evaluated cost/price; performing no meaningful cost realism evaluation; and not evaluating the proposal for balance, fairness or reasonableness, as specifically contemplated by the solicitation’s cost/price evaluation factor. The agency also did not afford ME an opportunity to submit its cost proposal as a Microsoft Excel file.”
The GAO rejected the Army’s interpretation of its submission requirements because “the solicitation’s evaluation criteria did not place offerors on notice that the agency simply would reject proposals without first performing a substantive evaluation. In addition, the record does not establish why the Army is unable to evaluate ME’s cost/price proposal using the pdf version of the proposal that it submitted, as opposed to a Microsoft Excel version of the cost/price proposal. Although a Microsoft Excel version of the proposal would include the underlying formulae used to arrive at the cost/price proposed by ME, the agency has not explained how the lack of such information would necessarily lead to its inability to evaluate the MS cost/price proposal.”
Additionally, the GAO stated that allowing ME to submit an Excel version of its cost/price proposal would be prudent, as long as no changes were made in the pricing, because this would amount to a mere clarification of the proposal. In the end, GAO sustained the protest and advised the Army to reevaluate ME’s proposal and awarded costs to ME.
So what have we learned? First, this GAO decision was based on the specific circumstances of this case. In no way does this indicate that the GAO would agree that it is always okay for an offeror to submit its proposal in the wrong electronic file format.
In fact, in a previous case, the GAO reached the opposite conclusion, stating that an offeror was properly excluded from award when it submitted its proposal in PDF instead of Excel. What was the difference? In the previous case, the agency argued that it needed to manipulate offerors’ cost data to complete the price evaluation, and the GAO agreed that doing so would be “unduly burdensome” without an Excel file.
Bottom line is that it is always best to follow the instructions in the RFP EXACTLY. That way, there are no “small” things than can keep you from getting the award.