Lack of detail sunk ICF’s bid for $308M GSA contract

A lack of detail in its proposal apparently sunk ICF International’s chances of hanging onto a contract for support of the General Services Administration's assisted acquisition arm.

GSA assigned a weakness to ICF’s technical proposal for the Assisted Service Shared Information System contract. That lower score helped swing GSA's decision General Dynamics IT, which came in with a higher technical score and a lower price at $309.8 million, compared to ICF’s $336 million bid.

We previously reported on how the Government Accountability Office denied ICF's protest against the award, but GAO unsealed its ruling on Monday. That gives us a closer look at how GSA made its decision.

GSA's ASSIST system is a set of tools that agencies can use as they develop and award contracts. It includes capabilities such as managing the procurement lifecycle, tracking funding, and post-award administration.

ICF’s overall technical score was graded as Good and GDIT received a score of Excellent.

In its protest, ICF disputed the lower score and argued that GSA overlooked information included in its proposal.

But GSA countered that the weakness dealt with how ICF proposed to modernize the ASSIST help function. GSA saw ICF’s proposal as too general and not specific enough.

In its defense, ICF pointed to portions of its proposal that included how it would modernize the help function.

“ICF’s proposal clearly outlines both the process and the anticipated services it planned to utilize to implement new features that the evaluators identified as beneficial,” the company wrote.

Unfortunately, the GAO decision redacts ICF's description of its approach to the help function.

GSA countered that ICF's proposal and protest rely on describe how it would modernize ASSIST overall, versus being specific to the help function.

ICF also argued that GSA ignored its own process for implementing new features and services. ICF said its process is based on that of GSA.

Both GSA and GAO have instead said that ICF still was not specific to the help function. That represents a risk to GSA.

“Vendors are responsible for submitting well-written proposals with adequately detailed information that allows for a meaningful review by the procuring agency,” GAO wrote.

ICF also challenged GSA’s finding about key personnel, which also was assessed a weakness. Here again, GSA had issues with a perceived lack of detail.

GSA said ICF did not provide information on hiring, retention and replacement of staff.

ICF claimed it did provide details, but GSA wasn’t satisfied because the statements in the proposal on personnel were too general.

The company disagreed with that ruling, but that was not enough to sway GAO.