By Government Contracts Editorial Staff
A technical evaluation was unreasonable because the government awarded strengths for features that were not included in the awardee’s proposal for maintenance and repair services. The evaluators identified five strengths in the awardee’s proposal that represented benefits or advantages as compared to the protester’s proposal, and the source selection authority found the strengths were discriminators and represented “unique benefits and advantages” for the awardee. Based on these five discriminators, the SSA concluded that the awardee’s proposal “generated the best overall value to the [g]overnment” and merited award, as compared to the protester’s lower technically-rated, lower-priced proposal. According to the protester, the features described in the awardee’s strengths were “nowhere to be found” in the awardee’s technical proposal.
Three Unsupported Strengths. The Comptroller General sustained the protest, finding the record did not support the assignment of three of the five strengths cited as discriminators. The awardee received one strength for proposing to provide a weekly forecast, which exceeded a solicitation requirement to “provide a comprehensive preliminary [p]reventative [m]aintenance [s]chedule for the base contract year.” The government acknowledged the awardee did not propose to provide a weekly PM forecast, but contended it was appropriate for the evaluators to rely on their “personal knowledge of how [the awardee] implements its PM schedule on the current contract.” However, “in the absence of any discussion of this matter in the awardee’s proposal, the government improperly assumed that [the awardee] would provide a weekly PM forecast.” For the same reasons, two strengths involving a requirement to provide a web-based tracking system/computer maintenance management system were improper. The evaluators’ comments in support of the strengths indicated they presumed that the awardee would perform the contract in a manner similar to its performance of the incumbent contract, even though the awardee did not specifically state it would do so in its proposal. The Comptroller General recommended the government reevaluate the awardee’s proposal, and, if necessary, make a new award decision. (Native Energy & Technology, Inc., 34 CGEN ¶116,316).
Interested in submitting an article?
Submit your information to us today!Learn More