Recent GAO Cases January/February 2005

In Capitol CREAG LLC, B-294958, GAO discusses the difference between when a small business non-responsibility decision must go to the SBA and when referral is not required.

GAO Synopsis:

Where the proposal of a small business concern is not selected for award because the agency concludes that the concern's approach to management and staffing creates a high risk of unacceptable performance, the agency's determination is not tantamount to a nonresponsibility determination and there is no requirement for referral to the SBA for the possible issuance of a COC.

In Crestridge, Inc., B-295424, GAO reaffirms the principal that you had better be able to back up your technical evaluation with facts and all proposals must be evaluated on the same factors and in a consistent manner.

GAO Synopsis:

Protest of task order award resulting from competition among Federal Supply Schedule vendors is sustained where record does not support agency's conclusion that awardee's quotation is technically superior to the protester's.

In Spotless Janitorial Services, Inc., B-295620, GAO denied the protest in an IFB case where the protestor on their bid submission said that their pricing was not to be disclosed. Since it was an IFB that made the bid nonresponsive since all bids are disclosed on the bid abstract.

In Cooley/Engineered Membranes; GTA Containers, Inc., B-294896.2 et. al., GAO sustained a protest where the agency allowed the awardee to propose a different testing method than that required by the solicitation.

GAO synopsis:

1. Protest challenging agencys evaluation of awardees proposal of an alternative test method to determine compliance with technical requirements is sustained where the record shows that the alternative test proposed by the awardee is not comparable to the tests required by the specifications and, thus, the agency lacked a reasonable basis to conclude that the awardees proposal was technically acceptable.

In SOS Interpreting, LTD, B-293026, et. al., GAO sustained a protest where the source selection deicsion did not address all necessary areas in making a best value determination.

GAO synopsis:

1. Source selection decision selecting lower-priced proposal as the best-value under a solicitation containing an evaluation scheme that attached greater weight to technical merit was not reasonably based, where the lower-level evaluators found and documented that the protester's higher-priced proposal was technically superior, and the source selection authority determined the proposals were technically equal and made award based on the low-priced proposal, without considering the areas where the protester's proposal was found technically superior.

2. Agency should not consider protester's earlier agency-level protest in evaluating its proposal in the absence of some evidence of abuse of the bid protest process by the protester.

3. Under procurement for translation services covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA) that required proposals to include realistic prices for option years that allowed for any increases that may affect price, agency did not evaluate proposal prices on an equal basis to account for the real costs to the government, where the awardee's proposed prices for Spanish linguists did not escalate for the option years and its proposal evidenced the intention of obtaining contract price increases if SCA wage determinations increased the awardee's salary or benefit obligations for Spanish linguists, and the other offerors' proposals (and even the awardee's proposal for positions other than Spanish linguists) included escalating prices for the option years that apparently accounted for possible SCA increases.