Agency Failure to Consider Proposal Differences Invalidates Award
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.06.11
In One Largo Metro LLC (June 20, 2011), GAO sustained three protests to a best value procurement for office space for HHS when GSA evaluated one of the technical subfactors in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation and failed to consider meaningfully the evaluated differences in the proposals. Regarding the latter protest ground, the source selection official, by disregarding the recommendations of the lower-level evaluators without explanation, did not conduct a well documented, meaningful consideration of the identified technical differences between the proposals and instead based her decision on a mechanical comparison of the subfactor ratings assigned by the lower-level evaluators.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
