• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights News Contract Stack
Main image for Recent GAO Decision Gives Ammunition To Protesters Challenging Technical Specifications
Publications|Article

Recent GAO Decision Gives Ammunition To Protesters Challenging Technical Specifications

FPSOnline Pulse

3.17.2017

In the course of responding to a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) or Request for Quotations (“RFQ”), have you ever encountered technical specifications that you regard as unreasonable?  Have you ever wondered why the Government included those specifications in the first place and, more generally, whether those specifications are even necessary to fulfill the requirements giving rise to the acquisition?  If your company is like most out there, the answer to these questions is a resounding “yes!”  What to do next, you ask?  A recent case before the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) is instructive.

Factual Background

On February 13, 2017, the GAO  issued its decision in Pitney Bowes, Inc., B-413876.2, through which it sustained a protest against unduly restrictive technical specifications found in a RFQ.  The facts are briefly synopsized as follows:

  • On November 3, 2016, the Department of Treasury (the “Agency”) issued the RFQ through the General Services Administration’s (“GSA”) eBuy system. 
  • The RFQ sought quotations for “four PS200 folder/inserters with four 500 sheet capacity sheet feeders, and four PS200 high capacity feeders, or equivalent machines” to replace certain document processing and mailing equipment at the Internal Revenue Service’s National Distribution Center in Bloomington, Illinois.
  • The statement of work (“SOW”) required that offerors propose a solution capable of meeting, among other requirements, the following technical specifications:
    • (1) “[a] high capacity sheet feeder with a capacity of up to 1,000 [sheets] per feeder with the capability of loading on the fly;” and
    • (2) “[o]ne envelope feeder to handle all types of envelopes from letters to flats.”
  • On November 7, 2016, the contractor filed a timely protest with the GAO (i.e., before proposals were due) challenging these technical specifications as unduly restrictive of competition.

Legal Challenges

First, the protester alleged that, although it could not meet the “on-the-fly” loading capability requirement, it could satisfy the Agency’s needs by “using two high capacity sheet feeders, each holding 1,000 sheets.”  In attempting to justify this requirement, the Agency “appear[ed] to concede” that the protester’s solution would provide for continuous operation, but argued that the use of the approach would require additional employee time, necessitate additional storage space, and would potentially result in more paper jams.  Notably, the Agency did not support its allegations with empirical data.  After reviewing the protester’s factual rebuttals to each of these arguments, the GAO concluded that the Agency “failed to provide a reasonable justification as to why a requirement for load-on-the-fly capability is necessary, when a different approach may be able to achieve the same results.”

Second, the protester contended that the requirement for the envelope feeder to handle “all types of envelopes” was not reasonably tailored to the Agency’s needs.  The protester further explained that its standard envelope feeder accommodated “the most common types of envelope sizes and flats,” and that it could also handle the “more unusual sizes” by changing the feed in a process taking less than 30 seconds.  In siding with the protester, the GAO noted that the Agency offered “no explanation” as to why it needed a feeder with universal functionality. 

Conclusion

The Pitney Bowes decision serves as an important reminder to every contractor grappling with how best to respond to a solicitation containing seemingly unnecessary technical requirements.  Don’t be afraid to ask “why” the specifications exist in the first place.  If you receive an unsatisfactory answer from the Government, or if there isn’t adequate time to address your concerns before the solicitation’s closing date, don’t hesitate to pursue your legal remedies by filing a pre-award bid protest.  As the GAO recognized, the Government is – of course –  “entitled to great discretion in establishing its needs.”  That said, the technical specifications designed to fulfill those needs must be both reasonable and grounded in fact.  Otherwise, it’s all too easy for the Government to waste taxpayer dollars by conducting illogical acquisitions based on fabricated requirements.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Franklin C. Turner
Franklin C. Turner

Partner

Related Services

Government Contracts & Global Trade
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel