More Recent GAO Cases January/February 2005

In The MIL Corporation, B-294836, GAO sustained a protest where the agency improperly evaluated past performance because it did not assign a neutral rating to a subfactor and also failed consider price as a meaningful evaluation factor.

GAO synopsis:

1. Agency's unfavorable evaluation of protester's proposal under a past performance subfactor was improper where the effect of the low rating was to penalize the protester for a lack of past performance information that the agency deemed relevant to this subfactor.

2. Agency's "best value" (price/technical tradeoff) analysis in which minimal consideration was given to proposed prices is improper because it fails to consider price as a meaningful evaluation factor, as required by 41 U.S.C. 253a(c)(1)(B) (2000) and the terms of the solicitation.

In KEI Pearson, Inc., B-294226.3 et.al. GAO sustains a protest reminding the agency that if the solicitation requires that all items be on an Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) then all items MUST be on the schedule and you cannot award a task order to someone for items purchased outside the FSS.

In Washington Adventist Hospital, B-294371.3 et. al. GAO denied a protest and upheld an agency's geographic restriction based upon legitimate program needs.

GAO synopsis:

In solicitation for hospital to partner with agency in establishing cardiothoracic surgery branch, geographical restriction requiring hospital to be within 10-minute walk or 5-minute drive from agency campus is reasonable where record shows restriction is necessary to meet agency's programmatic needs, which include quick accessibility to campus and hospital due to frequent interaction between program members in different locations.