GAO Cases on Innovative Approaches

Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., B-296493.6, October 6, 2006

• Responsibility determination not required when placing a task or delivery order under FSS contract.
• FAR 8.405-2(d) requires level of effort and labor mix evaluation in selection decision when SOW is required.

AlliantCorps, LLC, B-417126; B-417126.3; B-417126.4, February 27, 2019

• Comparative evaluation
• Streamlined evaluation and not documenting each component of vendor quotation. Agencies Solicitation advised about limited evaluation record. GAO - Judgement must be documented in sufficient detail to show it is not arbitrary.

Amyx Inc., B-416734.2, April 9, 2019

• Streamlined Evaluation and Selection Documents
• Documentation need only be sufficient to establish that the agency was aware of the relative merits of the competing quotes.

FAR 16.505(b)(1)

• Protest that agency improperly evaluated proposals under solicitation’s corporate experience factor and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff is sustained because the solicitation established the corporate experience factor as the most important factor for the purpose of the agency’s best-value tradeoff process, yet the agency evaluated corporate experience solely on a pass/fail basis and did not afford the factor any further qualitative consideration in the tradeoff decision.
• Two phase evaluation approach could have been successfully if the role of pass/fail factor was better spelled out in the solicitation and followed through to award.

Deloitte Consulting LLP, B-417988.2; B-417988.3; B-417988.4, March 23, 2020

• Agency documentation did not adequately support award to lower price offeror.
• Agencies may not base their decisions on ratings alone, but are required to consider underlying bases for ratings.

• Confidence Rating
• Oral Presentations

• Responsibility is a contract formation matter and per FAR not required when exercising an option.

E3 Federal Solutions, LLC d/b/a Avantus Federal, B-419712; B-419712.2, July 8, 2021

FAR 16.505(b)(1)

• Confidence Rating
• Oral Presentations
• Tradeoff decision to award to higher price even when same confidence rating is supported by documentation.

FAR 15.3

• Go/no-go phased evaluation
• CTA Contractor Team Arrangements

IBM Corporation, B-415575, January 19, 2018

FAR 15.3

• Confidence Rating
• Advisory down-select
• Oral Presentations
• Innovative Market Research techniques

Leidos Innovation Corporation, B-415514; B-415514.2; B-415514.3, January 18, 2018

FAR 16.505(b)(1)

• Best suited then negotiate
• Agencies do not need to videotape or record oral presentation.
• Responsibility on persuasive response during oral presentation falls on offeror.

MTB-Group, Inc, B-295463, February 23, 2005

• Reverse auction format under SAP do not expressly prohibit disclosure of vendors’ prices.

Sapient Government Services, Inc., B-412163.2, January 4, 2016

FAR 16.505(b)(1)

• Streamlined Evaluation and Selection Documents Technique.
• Oral presentations are not discussions.
• Simple and brief bullets can be used to document technical evaluations.

• Department of Commerce protest
• Agency restriction of experience solely to the prime is not objectionable if the requirement meets an agency’s legitimate need, e.g., to reduce risk of unsuccessful performance due to complexity. 
• Agency is not required to evaluate past performance under a task order competition, but rather, can use Corporate Experience to obtain more meaningful insight into the capabilities of an offeror.
• Example Evaluation Criteria

  File

  Example Corporate Experience Evaluation Criteria.docx

Sevatec Inc., B-413559.3, January 11, 2017

FAR 15.3

• It is not a CICA violation to exclude offerors before considering price.
• Tradeoff selection has been achieved as the process considered price of every awardee.

The Ambit Group, LLC, B-420079, November 19, 2021

FAR 8.4

• Down-select go, no-go basis with failure to establish valid protest grounds on down-selection, disqualifies protester as an interested party.
• Requirement may be burdensome or impossible for a given company to meet if it reasonably represents the agency’s needs.

VariQ Corporation, B-414650.11; B-414650.15, May 30, 2018

FAR 16.505(b)(1)

• Select best-suited, then negotiate
• Number count of strengths and weaknesses is not a great foundation for award decision.

Verisys Corporation, B-413204.5; B-413204.6; B-413204.7, October 2, 2017

FAR 8.4

• Oral Presentations
• Price reduction exchanges per FAR 8.405-4.

Vertical Jobs, B-415891.2; B-415891.4, April 19, 2018

FAR 15.3

• Oral presentation is not discussion as offerors were never afforded an opportunity to submit proposal revisions.
• Protester not an interested party if not next in line for award.

XL Associates Inc. d/b/a XLA, B-417426.3, January 16, 2020

FAR 8.4

• Confidence Rating
• Protester relied on another vendor consistent with past orders; however, the agency lowered rating and GAO found it reasonable.