[Complaints Alleging Improper Evaluation Criteria]

A firm complained about the rejection of its proposals under a solicitation for the design and construction of housing for the elderly issued by two grantees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The complainant contended that the proposal evaluation criteria placed unreasonable emphasis on aesthetics while durability, ultimate usage, value, and price were insignificant in the evaluation. The complainant also contended that the inclusion in one of the solicitations of the amount budgeted for the project was improper, because it encouraged offerors to price their offers to take advantage of the full amount. In addition, it argued that, in each case, the selection of a more costly proposal over a less costly one was improper, since either proposal would result in a building with the same characteristics that would serve the same purposes. GAO found that the complaints concerning the inclusion of the amount budgeted in one of the solicitations and the evaluation criteria were untimely, because they should have been filed prior to the date for receipt of proposals. Since the award of a negotiated contract need not be made to the offeror proposing the lowest cost unless the solicitation indicates otherwise, GAO found the complaint about the selection for award of a higher priced proposal to be without merit. Accordingly, the complaints were dismissed in part and denied in part.