GAO Decides GSA Schedule Labor Category Descriptions Limit Technical Scope of Responsive Proposals

GSA Schedule contractors need to pay careful attention to a recent protest decision issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the matter of AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-411481.3 (GAO Jan. 6, 2016). AllWorld filed its protest in response to the issuance of a task order to SOS International, Ltd. (SOSI). The order was awarded by the General Services Administration (GSA), on behalf of the Department of the Air Force, to acquire linguistic support services to be performed in southwest Asia.

The GAO found that SOSI was not responsive to the requirements of the solicitation because the functional descriptions of the Schedule labor categories SOSI proposed did not meet the technical requirements of the RFQ. The GAO held that SOSI’s quotation did not “contemplate providing personnel qualified to perform the solicited requirements.” This decision affirms several contracting principles relevant to Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors. These principals, if ignored, can result not only in rejected proposals but potentially, even where the proposal is successful, a protracted post-award protest.

Responsive Proposals: Labor Category Descriptions Matter

This GAO decision clarifies the sometimes vague relationship between the functional description of a GSA labor category (LCAT) and the technical requirements in a particular RFQ. According to the GAO, the functional description of an LCAT defines its scope for purposes of proposals that include that category. GAO ruled, “to the extent a quoted labor category description under a firm’s FSS contract does not, in the words of GSA, ‘align precisely’ with the requirements of a given solicitation, the firm may not properly alter the underlying labor category description through the terms of its quotation.”

In other words, if a quoted LCAT does not align with the technical requirements of an RFQ, the proposal is non-responsive and cannot serve as the basis for issuing a task order. Importantly, if an authorized user of the GSA Schedules awards a task order in spite of this deficiency, the risk of a successful protest is clear. This risk is augmented by the public nature of LCAT descriptions. All GSA Schedule vendors are required to publish their LCAT descriptions on GSA Advantage!, which means they are readily available for competitors’ scrutiny.

In conclusion, GAO’s ruling holds that an LCAT’s functional description is the equivalent of a product’s technical specification. Accordingly, GAO states that awarded GSA LCATS have “fixed, discrete, specific descriptions” that are contractually binding and not subject to alteration just as “… the technical specifications are for products.” In regard to preparing task order proposals, the take-away is straight forward. Vendors must ensure that any proposed LCATs include functional descriptions that address the requirements of the RFQ. No allowance can be made when the LCAT description does not meet the requirements of the RFQ without protest risk. In the alternative, modify your GSA schedule to augment the scope of currently awarded LCATs.

More to come…

The AllWorld decision covers several important topics for GSA Schedule contractors that merit further discussion. The second installment of this series will provide vendors guidance on how to appropriately limit the scope of current, accurate and complete Commercial Sales Practices pricing disclosures with respect to LCATs. The final installment will discuss the ongoing tension between GAO and GSA with regard to the manner in which a GSA Schedule’s cancellation or expiration may affect a Federal Agency’s ability to exercise task order options.

Got questions? Connect with an experienced Aprio Government Contracting advisor today. 
Schedule a Consultation