Whether its bidding on a government contract or shopping now to ensure Christmas gifts arrive on time despite the global supply chain issues, it’s always good to have a backup plan.
Submitting alternative proposals allows an offeror to propose unique alternatives to meet agency needs. In theory, these alternative proposals improve efficiency or cost in ways the government didn’t anticipate. A recent GAO decision, however, is a reminder of why getting too creative may not be worthwhile.
Primary Care Solutions, Inc. involved a VA procurement for a community-based outpatient clinic in San Antonio, Texas.
The solicitation supplied offerors with a pre-formatted pricing schedule. Offerors had to supply pricing as an all-inclusive monthly rate for each performance period. No exceptions.
However, the solicitation encouraged offerors to supply alternative proposals for consideration. Through an incorporated FAR clause, the solicitation advised as follows:
Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions, including alternative line items (provided that the alternative line items are consistent with subpart 4.10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation), or alternative commercial items for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately.
Thus, offerors could submit multiple proposals with various pricing and technical strategies.
Primary Care Solutions–the eventual protester–developed two pricing proposals. One proposal followed the solicitation’s pricing instructions. It’s alternative proposal, however, included additional pricing outside of the all-inclusive line items required by the Solicitation.
After multiple rounds of evaluation, the VA determined that Primary Care Solutions and another offeror, Clinovators offered comparable approaches under the non-price factors, but Clinovators was lower priced. Clinovators won the award and promptly protested.
It alleged the VA had unreasonably failed to consider its alternative pricing proposal. According to Primary Care Solutions, its alternative pricing proposal would have offered a similar price for a comparably rated technical proposal. GAO was not specific on what price advantage—if any—Primary Care Solutions would have achieved.
For its part, the VA defended its award decision. According to the VA, it reasonably rejected Primary Care Solution’s alternative pricing proposal because it did not conform to the requirements of the solicitation.
GAO agreed with the VA. As it explained, “[a]lthough the RFP, by incorporating FAR provision 52.212-1, required that the agency consider multiple offers, there is no requirement that an agency consider a proposal that does not otherwise conform to the requirements of the solicitation.” Since Primary Care Solutions’ alternative proposal did not use the all-inclusive structure required by the solicitation, GAO concluded the VA reasonably rejected the alternative proposal. Thus, this protest ground was denied.
The lesson from Primary Care Solutions is a straightforward one: alternative proposals must comply with the stated terms of the underlying solicitation. Even though Primary Care Solutions believed it had provided a superior pricing strategy with its alternative proposal, that did not give it free reign to go outside of the solicitation’s specified pricing requirements.
While a seemingly straightforward decision, GAO’s resolution of the issue runs the risk of stifling innovation. There is little incentive for offerors to develop novel pricing strategies if the reviewing agency isn’t required to even crack the spine of the alternative proposal.
In short, don’t get too creative.
Alternative Proposals Encouraged; Just Don’t Get Creative. was last modified: October 19th, 2021 by