Vendor Salary and Benefits Information Must be Meaningfully Considered When Evaluating Realism of Vendor Compensation The Government Accountability

Vendor Salary and Benefits Information Must be Meaningfully Considered When Evaluating Realism of Vendor Compensation The Government Accountability

Office sustained a protest filed by Veterans Management Services against the U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s contract award to Stafford Consulting Company by. The Request for Quotation in question incorporated FAR provision 52.222-46, which emphasizes that it is in the Government’s best interest that professional employees be fairly compensated. To this end, it requires vendors to submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract.

Under this provision, the government evaluates the compensation plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. As part of this evaluation, professional compensation is assessed in terms of its impact on recruitment and retention, its realism, and its consistency with the overall compensation strategy.

The GAO concluded that the USDA’s evaluation of the compensation plan submitted by Veterans Management Services was improper because it solely considered fully burdened labor rates. For the GAO, under FAR provision 52.222-46, the USDA was required to meaningfully consider the salary and fringe benefit information provided by Veterans Management Services.

The GAO ruled that this approach was contrary to the terms of the solicitation and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Furthermore, it led the agency to determine that the labor rates proposed by the protester posed a risk and were unrealistic.

Consequently, the GAO recommended that the agency reevaluate vendors’ quotations in accordance with the terms of the RFQ, FAR provision 52.222-46, and the discussion in its decision. Additionally, it recommended that the agency perform a new best-value tradeoff determination and, if a vendor other than Stafford is selected for award, it recommended that the agency terminate the award to Stafford for the convenience of the government and make a new award, if otherwise proper. Finally, it recommended that the agency reimburse Veterans Management’s costs associated with filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.