Matter of: PAE National Security Solutions, LLC Agency: Department of Justice Disposition: Protest Sustained Decided: May 19, 2021 Keywords: Attorney’s Fees, Best Value, Bid and Proposal Costs, Evaluation Criteria, Evaluations, Experience Requirement, Key Personnel, Remedies, Resumes, Task Orders, Technical Evaluation, Unequal Treatment of Offerors, Unstated Evaluation Criteria General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Protest sustained where the
Matter of: Transworld Systems, Inc; Account Control Technology, Inc. Agency: Department of the Treasury Disposition:Protest Sustained as to Transworld Systems, Inc. Keywords: Evaluation Criteria; Technical Evaluation Decided:December 22, 2017 Published: February 21, 2018 General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Not all protest grounds are discoverable prior to filing a protest. An agency’s inconsistent evaluation of factors results in a protest
Matter of: Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC Agency: Department of the Navy Disposition: Protest Sustained Keywords: Evaluation Criteria; Proposal Evaluation; Source Selection Decision Decided: January 18, 2017 Released: November 20, 2017 General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Proposal evaluation and source selection decisions must be consistent between offerors. When the record shows disparate evaluation and the protester is
Matter of: AT&T Corporation Agency: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau Disposition: Protest Sustained Keywords: Evaluation Criteria; Documentation of Evaluation Decided: October 5, 2017 General Counsel P.C. Highlight: It is essential that evaluation and source selection decisions are adequately documented. Where the agency engages in discussions, they must be fair and equitable to all parties
Agency: Department of the Navy Disposition: Protest Sustained Decided: October 16, 2017 Keywords: Evaluation Criteria, Proposal Evaluation General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Agencies are bound not only by the terms and conditions outlined in the RFP, but also federal law. Additionally, an agency’s failure to document the rationale for decisions may result in protests being sustained.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Disposition: Protest Sustained Decided: April 26, 2017 General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Agencies must evaluate proposals consistent with stated evaluation criteria. Agencies must document their evaluations sufficiently, such that a reviewing body understands the process utilized to come to a decision. A failure to adequately document agency determinations
Agency: Department of Defense, United States Transportation Command Disposition: Protest Sustained in Part and Dismissed in Part Keywords: Timeliness of Protest; Evaluation Criteria General Counsel P.C. Highlight: (1) Objections to RFP structure, which may allow offerors to propose unbalanced pricing, must be objected to before the time set for receipt of initial proposals. Subsequent objections
Link: GAO Opinion Agency: Department of the Air Force Disposition: Protest denied. General Counsel P.C. Highlight: GAO denied the protest of Alpha-Omega Change Engineering, Inc. (AOCE), based on the rejection of its proposal and the award of contracts to Intecon, LLC and S4, Inc. under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Department of
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Exelis Systems Corporation Agency: Department of State Disposition: Protest Sustained. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: Protest challenging the evaluation of offerors’ proposed staffing is sustained where the agency did not reasonably evaluate the offerors’ proposals in accordance with solicitation’s staffing plan subfactor. Protest challenging the agency’s assignment of weaknesses to the protester’s proposal
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Pinnacle Solutions, Inc. Agency: Department of the Army, Army Material Command Disposition: Protest Denied. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: Protest that agency held defective discussions is denied where agency did not hold discussions with either offeror, did not invite either offeror to revise its proposal, and limited the scope of its communications to