Protest of Exclusion From Competitive Range

A firm protested its exclusion from the competitive range under a request for proposals (RFP) alleging that the evaluation of its proposal was not impartial, and that the evaluation criteria were not properly applied. The protester contended that the solicitation did not provide sufficient information to permit it to prepare a responsive bid; that information made available to other bidders, but denied to the protester, imparted an unfair competitive advantage; and that the contract was awarded improperly. The contract was awarded to another firm after a protest had been filed with and denied by the agency, but before a protest was filed with GAO. GAO found that the bases for the allegations concerning informational omissions and deficiencies in the RFP were known prior to the date for submission of proposals and should have been protested prior to that date. Therefore, these bases of protest were not considered. Because the protester's competitors had previous contracts involving this agency program, GAO found no evidence to support the contention that the competitors improperly obtained additional information for this procurement other than performance of prior contracts. The agency was not obligated to equalize any advantages in connection with this procurement. After examining the protester's proposal, GAO concluded that the agency's assessment was reasonable. The RFP clearly indicated that bidders were to provide in their technical proposals sufficient evidence to establish their capabilities; GAO held that the protester's proposal did not provide a concrete basis for the agency's determination. The contention that the evaluation criteria were inconsistently applied was based on alleged contradictions in the agency's evaluation. GAO regarded the evidence as consistent with the uncertainty reflected in the agency's reasonable assessment of portions of the proposal. After examining the alleged deficiencies in the evaluation of the technical proposal, GAO found substantial support for the agency's position. The contract award was proper because it was made during the interval between the denial of the protest by the agency and the filing of the protest with GAO, when no protest was pending. The protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.