Government Contracts Award Stands Despite Multiple Evaluation Errors
Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Award Stands Despite Multiple Evaluation Errors

By Government Contracts Editorial Staff

Although the record reflected unreasonable evaluations and misleading discussions, the protester was denied relief because it failed to show it was prejudiced by the errors. The protest arose from a contract award for support of the Army Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations Maintenance Program. After reviewing the evaluation reports and the award recommendation prepared by the source selection advisory council, the source selection authority compared the protester’s $1.36 billion proposal and the awardee’s $1.26 billion proposal. The SSA concluded “[i]t is clear that the proposal submitted by [the awardee] is the more highly rated proposal in the two most important factors, and equivalent to [the protester] in the third non-price factor.” After noting the awardee also proposed a lower price, the SSA found “[the awardee] represents the best value to the [g]overnment.”

Price Too High. The Comptroller General agreed with the protester that the government improperly assigned weaknesses to the protester’s proposal under the phase-in and transition subfactor and the organic Army depot support subfactor. In addition, there was unequal treatment—both the protester and the awardee committed to making changes to drop-down menus within 20 working days, but this was cited as an aspect of a strength only for the awardee. Further, the government’s discussions misled the protester into altering its proposed approach for adhesive barcodes, and led the protester to propose an alternative approach which was assigned a weakness. However, the protester did not challenge the fact that its price was $102 million (7.47 percent) higher than the awardee’s. In light of the awardee’s lower overall price, to show competitive prejudice, the protester had to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that its proposal would be more highly rated than the awardee’s. Viewing the errors both individually and collectively, there was no reasonable prospect of the protester receiving a higher rating. (Raytheon Co., 33 CGEN ¶116,047).

Back to Top

Interested in submitting an article?

Submit your information to us today!

Learn More