As prescribed in 22.1103, insert the following provision:
Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (FEB 1993)
(a) Recompetition of service contracts may in some cases result in lowering the compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) paid or furnished professional employees. This lowering can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance. It is therefore in the Government's best interest that professional employees, as defined in 29 CFR 541, be properly and fairly compensated. As a part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror's ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.
(b) The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.
(c) The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor's ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.
(d) Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.
(End of provision)
[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 57 FR 60582, Dec. 21, 1992]
Notes of Decisions
Crassociates, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 357 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
· cites it 5× “” 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46 (a). To avoid this detriment, the clause requires offerors to “submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract.”
Crassociates, Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 698 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The CO also reviewed the pricing issues for both offerors, conducted a further review in accordance with 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46 , and determined that both offers were realistic and that a fair and reasonable price could be determined based on comparison with competitive pricing…”
Sys. Dynamics Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 499 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
· cites it 4× “103(d) (Procedures Governing Agency Protest); 48 C.F.R. 52.222-46 (Evaluation Of Compensation For Professional Employees); Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 12(b)(1) (Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction).”
Eskridge & Assocs. v. United States, 955 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
“(internal quotation marks and citation omit- ted); see 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46 . 3 Eskridge withdrew its 2 The 2018 Solicitation was amended multiple times and included, inter alia, an increase to the minimum com- pensation rate to $121.”
CTA Inc. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 684 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
· cites it 2× “222-46 ( 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46 (Apr. 1984)) as paragraph L.”
K-Mar Indus., Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 20 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
· cites it 3× “The Army Was Not Required to Amend the Solicitation After Receiving Initial Offers KMI also argues that the Army failed to include 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46 in the solicitation and failed to evaluate the offerors’ compensation plans accordingly.”
Digiflight, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46 (a). It would also require the contracting agency to “evaluate the plan[s] to assure that [they] reflect[] a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements.”
Mayvin, Inc v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2026).
“[and] [i]n order to ensure compliance with 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46 , the Request for Proposals (RFP) must be amended to increase at least some, if not all, of the labor rates provided in RFP Attachment 11 .”
— 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46(a) — 1 case
Sys. Dynamics Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 499 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“103(d) (Procedures Governing Agency Protest); 48 C.F.R. 52.222-46 (Evaluation Of Compensation For Professional Employees); Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 12(b)(1) (Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction).”
— 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46(b) — 1 case
Sys. Dynamics Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 499 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“103(d) (Procedures Governing Agency Protest); 48 C.F.R. 52.222-46 (Evaluation Of Compensation For Professional Employees); Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 12(b)(1) (Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.