• R.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Agencies Must Look Beyond Adjectival Ratings in Source Selection

One of the recurring themes in bid protests that are sustained by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) is the need for agencies to look “beyond adjectival ratings,” and qualitatively assess the underlying merits of the technical proposals in negotiated procurements. Indeed, in a recent article, this author found that out of the last six years (2013-18), GAO has reported that “flawed selection decisions” was one of the seven most prevalent grounds for sustaining protests. See Lieberman, “Treating On the Same Rake-Learning from Agency Mistakes Identified in GAO Bid Protest Decisions,” Nat’l Contr. Mgt Assn ‘Contract Management’ (Jan. 2019) ( Available at https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/98886d_57246d26e5c948feb9b7b25758ba5e67.pdf). And within this category, there were numerous instances of sustained protests because of the failure to look beyond the adjectival ratings when making the source selection.

Two recent GAO decisions involved protests that were sustained for the same reason—Cyberdata Technologies, Inc., B-417084, Feb. 6, 2019 and Apogee Engineering, LLC, B-414829, Feb. 21. 2019. In Cyberdata, there were two companies in contention for weather and climate computing services for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The two were Cyberdata and Ace. Both companies were rated “Acceptable” for their technical approach, “Good” for their Corporate experience, and “Good” overall. The only difference on the face of the procurement was that Cyberdata’s price was $104.4 million, while Ace’s price was $102 million. The best value, cost-technical tradeoff was made in a simple way: the selection official concluded that because both offerors were rated good, the determining factor became price, and awarded to Ace.

Cyberdata protested that the agency failed to look behind the adjectival ratings in making the selection decision. GAO sustained the protest noting that the evaluation of proposals and consideration of their relative merit should be based upon a “qualitative assessment of proposals consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme.” Adjectival scores alone are insufficient. Here, the agency looked only at the number of strengths assessed to each vendor to determine that the proposals were technically equal. In fact, the overall rating for Cyberdata was based on a combination of significant strengths and “some strengths” whereas the overall rating for Ace’s quotation was based on a combination of significant strengths and “several strengths”. The record did not demonstrate that the selection official considered the qualitative value of the vendors’ proposals, GAO sustained the protest.

In Apogee, there were two companies in contention for support services for the Department of Tansportation. Both Apogee and the awardee, CASE, had “Exceptional” ratings in all three technical areas evaluated—Technical Capability, Staffing/Resumes and Corporate Experience/Past Performance. The solicitation set forth a best value, cost-technical tradeoff. Apogee protested that the agency had merely looked at the adjectival (“exceptional”) ratings, without considering the underlying technical capability, and awarded to the lower price. In fact, the agency had assigned several strengths to each proposal, but the source selection official did not meaningfully look beyond the adjectival ratings, or consider the qualitative value of each proposal, in determining that the proposals were technically equal. On this basis, the GAO sustained the protest.

Takeaway. Agencies must justify the differences in proposals when making a selection, and look beyond the mere adjectival (or point scores) in their selection. Just because an adjectival value is the same, the underlying proposal could be better or worse, depending on how the evaluators rated it.

For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes

1 view0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Informal Agency Protests: A Reminder

Formal agency protests must be submitted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 33.103, which sets out specific rules, procedures and requirements. There is a simpler way to protest

Typed Name is Acceptable for Contract Disputes Act

A recent decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) held that as long as a mark (such as a typed signature) purporting to act as a signature may be traced back to the individua

Constructive Notice of Contracting Actions

“Constructive” is defined as “legally imputed; existing by virtue of legal fiction though not existing in fact.” Blacks Law Dict. (Tenth Ed. 2014). Several types of constructive actions occur in gove

The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2020 Richard D. Lieberman