This short guide provides an overview of 5 most prevalent grounds where the Government Accountability Office has sustained protests based on its 2015 Bid Protest Report.
Unreasonable Cost or Price Evaluation
Under this ground, the protester should check whether an agency's evaluation of costs or price was reasonable. In Computer Sciences Corp.; HP Enterprise Servs., LLC; Harris IT Servs. Corp.; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-408694.7 et al., Nov. 3, 2014, 2014 CPD 331, the GAO found that it was not. In this protest, the agency's cost realism analysis was unreasonable because there was no record to show that the agency conducted an independent assessment of whether labor hours, skill mix, and labor mix were sufficient to successfully perform the requirement. Specifically, the GAO noted "... we agree that the agency's explanation of its cost realism evaluation fails to demonstrate any analysis of the realism of the widely varying labor hours proposed by the offerors." The GAO sustained the protest.
Unreasonable Past Performance Evaluation
Under this ground, the protester may consider whether to file a protest when the record shows that an agency's evaluation was unreasonable. In Al Raha Group for Technical Services, Inc.; Logistics Management International, Inc., B-411015.2; B-411015.3, Apr. 22, 2015, 2015 CPD 134, the GAO found that the agency failed to consider past performance information concerning key personnel even though the protester submitted that information. In this protest, the GAO found specifically that "...the agency's evaluation with respect to SupplyCore's and LMI's past performance was unreasonable, inconsistent with the terms of the RFP, and not adequately documented." Based on this ground, the GAO sustained the protest.
Failure to Follow Evaluation Criteria
Under this ground, the protester must review whether an agency evaluated his or her proposal in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. In Tantus Technologies, Inc., B-411608; B-411608.3, Sept. 14, 2015, 2015 CPD 299, the GAO found that the agency unreasonably failed to consider whether the awardee's proposal to relocate employees posed a risk inconsistent with the solicitation requirement to evaluate the extent to which the proposed staffing plan ensured that appropriately qualified staff were available on an ongoing basis. In fact, the GAO noted that the agency failed to even address this point. Based on this, the GAO sustained this protest.
Inadequate Documentation Of The Record
Under this ground, the GAO will review whether an agency maintained adequate records to explain its decisions. In CFS-KBR Marianas Support Services, LLC; Fluor Federal Solutions LLC, B-410486, et al., Jan. 2, 2015, 2015 CPD 22, the GAO found that the agency failed to document why it changed its ratings where the offerors did not increase proposed staffing levels commensurate with the agency's discussion questions.
Unreasonable Technical Evaluation
nder this ground, the GAO will review whether an agency meaningfully or adequately explained its decisions or addressed differences between proposals and the solicitation requirements. In US Investigations Services, LLC, B-410454.2, Jan.15, 2015, 2015 CPD 44, the GAO found that the agency erred in concluding that the labor categories included on the awardee's Federal Supply Schedule contract encompassed the requirements of the task order.
Additional resources provided by the author
This is provided for educational use only. This is not legal advice. If you see legal advice, it is recommended that you consult with an attorney. Attorney-Advertising
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on
their profile in addition to the information we collect from state
bar associations and other organizations that license legal
professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo
with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do
What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, education
Legal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awards
Legal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagements
This lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority in .
Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.