A few years ago, a proposal manager asked me my opinion whether their proposal was compliant with the RFP’s proposal presentation requirements. Specifically, they were asking about “Single Spaced Text.” My answer was something to the effect of “the Government’s opinion is the one that matters, not mine.” Then I offered to do some research.
For the past 30 years I’ve used 7 brands of desktop publishing software on DOS, Windows 3.1 to Windows 11, Mac OS 9 to 14.7, Linux, and Systel. What I’ve learned is not all Single Space text is the same and some software doesn’t even use the term.
If the solicitation instructions requires compatibility with MS, Word then the answer to the question is a simple glance at the paragraph settings. If the submission is a PDF file, things can get crazy. A great example is described in 2016’s United States Government Accountability Office file B-412652.3; B-412652.6. You won’t be disappointed by the twists and turns of GAO’s evaluation.
In this case the RFQ requirements were:
- pages in excess of the 10-page limitation would not be evaluated,
- text shall be 12 point (or larger), single-spaced, using Times New Roman Courier, Geneva, Arial or Universal font type,
- spreadsheets, charts, tables, diagrams or design drawings, [and] graphs” are exempt from the font size, spacing and other requirements,
- and the quotation must follow the prescribed format
Regarding formatting, the protester had two complaints specifically calling out ways that the awardee’s submission circumvented the 10-page limit.
Complaint #1
The awardee used formatting that included a substantial amount of narrative as tables, allowing a significant saving of space.
The GAO decided that for the first assertion there was “no basis to sustain the protester’s challenges” since the “RFQ does not address the size of tables (or the other listed exceptions) or limit their content.” Decision: Awardee
Complaint #2:
The second complaint has a much more interesting story.
The awardee used line spacing for the technical quotation that was less than single-spacing.
GAO decided the “common meaning” of single-spaced means no blank lines and that different formatting software had have different formatting for the default single space. Decision: Awardee
Except…the GAO did a comparison of the two responses.
Awardee Technical Volume response:
Protestor Technical Volume response:
Both satisfied GAO’s definition of single-space, so the decision should go to the awardee despite the awardee’s obvious advantage. Decision: Awardee
Except…the GAO compared the technical volume to the other two volumes of the awardee’s RFQ response.
The GAO found that the awardee’s spacing in the technical volume (which measured 66 lines per page) was different than in the other two volumes (measuring 44 lines per page), a “significant deviation” of 50% more narrative in the page limited volume. The GAO used the words, “dramatically” and “deliberate and intentional” to describe the page limit evasion of the RFQ-mandated requirement, which was “single-spaced,” not “at least single-spaced” but it was the difference between volumes that demonstrated that the awardee was clear in their intention to subvert the requirement. Decision: Protestor
Except…the awardee’s non-compliance didn’t require dismissal of their response. GAO’s intervenor (the person reviewing the protest) pointed out that the RFQ did not state that non-compliant quotations will be eliminated from the competition. It said non-compliance may be eliminated from the competition or adversely evaluated. This provision allowed the reviewer to consider the quotation. Decision: Awardee
Except…the intervenor cited precedents that “to be reasonable, and therefore valid, an interpretation must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole and in a reasonable manner…We sustain the protests on this basis.” The intervenor recommended that the awardee reimburse the protestor’s legal fees and time expended on the protest. Decision: Protestor
Except…the GAO’s intervenor recommended that the agency that issued the RFQ should re-evaluate the whole thing and re-do the whole solicitation. Decision: Nobody
This was kicked back to the issuing agency, so there could still be more to the story. Was it re-bid? Did a third party get the win?
After looking at this and other precedents I gave my opinion to the proposal manager: getting caught violating the requirements would likely cost the company. It might cost as little as legal fees defending the protest. It might cost the solicitation’s award value if the company is disqualified after winning. It might cause harm to the company’s reputation, putting future awards at risk. It costs the client, by delaying when they get what they need, by forcing them to award to the second-best bidder, by having to spend the time and effort to rework the whole solicitation, and maybe it will cost the client all the time and money they put into the solicitation when the whole thing is cancelled.
Don’t cheat.