top of page

GAO Will Allow Consideration of Reasonably Related Additional Value in Evaluations of Offers

  • Writer: R.D. Lieberman,Consultant
    R.D. Lieberman,Consultant
  • Sep 21, 2023
  • 2 min read

A recent decision confirms that in a source selection, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) saw nothing unreasonable in giving credit to an offeror that exceeded the solicitation requirements but could provide value to the agency during contract performance. Midnight Sun-Cetennial Sunnliaq JV, LLC, B-420583.4, May 11, 2023.


In a solicitation for design-build construction services related to Fort Bragg, NC, Midnight alleged that the evaluation was improper and used unstated evaluation criteria. The protest centered on a conceptual design for a seed/sample project. In questions asked before offers were submitted, the contracting agency, the Corps of Engineers, stated that “no detailed design is required for the [seed-]sample project.” Midnight asserted that the Corps unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s technical approach as superior due to its inclusion of a conceptual design. The Corps, in its response, noted that although offerors were not required to provide documentation for the seed/sample project such as a design concept, additional information was not prohibited.


The Corps concluded that the awardee’s proposal demonstrated significant technical approach strengths to justify the firm’s selection of additional cost line items and showed superior understanding of the contract requirements. (Awardee’s evaluated price was $64.98 million while Midnight’s evaluated price was $37.54 million).


In denying Midnight’s protest, the GAO noted that all evaluation factors must be included in the solicitation, but an agency is not required to list every area that may be considered in the evaluation—and the agency may evaluate areas that are reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated criteria. GAO found the evaluation to be reasonable. “While offerors were not required to provide a design or other narrative [and Midnight and others’ proposals were evaluated as acceptable], we see nothing unreasonable in the evaluators’ judgment that [awardee’s) inclusion of additional information to justify its approach to the seed/sample project provided strengths that exceeded the requirements and could provide value to the agency during performance.”


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.

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Invalid "Final Decision"

Does the absence of a required claim render a Contracting Officer’s (“CO”) “final” decision invalid?.  The answer is simple, such a...

 
 
 

Comentários


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 © 2024 Richard D. Lieberman

bottom of page