[Protest of DOE Selection of Incumbent Contractor]

In a preaward protest, a firm challenged the Department of Energy's (DOE) selection of an incumbent contractor to continue to manage, operate, and maintain a solar energy research institute. The protester argued that it should be awarded the contract because it received a higher technical evaluation score than the proposed awardee and its contract costs would be lower since it offered to absorb all relocation costs. Despite the fact that the technical evaluation board found the two bidders' proposals essentially equal, the source selection official found substantial differences between them and concluded that the proposed awardee's proposal was more advantageous to the Government, albeit by a small margin, and that the cost differentials were too slight to have any impact on the selection. The protester argued that a source selection official did not have the discretion to reject its proposal and regarded the action as an improper veto of the DOE evaluation team. It further argued that the official used unlisted evaluation criteria in his selection and asserted that an award to the incumbent contractor will limit future competition. GAO stated that, unless a solicitation sets forth a precise numerical formula and provides that award will be made to the offerer of the proposal receiving the highest score, award need not be made on that basis. This solicitation did not contain a numerical formula; therefore, the protester was not entitled to award on the basis of its evaluation score. Moreover, its evaluation score did not indicate a technically superior proposal. Selection officials are not bound by the recommendations and conclusions of evaluators, and GAO found that this selection was both rational and consistent with established evaluation factors and that the selection official reasonably determined that the cost differential was too slight to have an impact on the choice. Even if incumbency placed the proposed awardee at a competitive advantage, there is no legal requirement that the Government consider this advantage unless it has somehow contributed to it. Finally, GAO found no evidence that the selecting official's overruling of lower level evaluators was arbitrary or the result of bad faith or bias. Accordingly, the protest was denied.