[Protest of Navy Contract Award for Technical Services]

B-218335: Jun 28, 1985

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A firm protested a Navy contract award, contending that the Navy did not properly evaluate technical/cost proposals in accordance with the solicitation's stated criteria. GAO noted that offerers were required to submit technical and cost proposals so that the Navy could perform a technical/cost tradeoff analysis to examine the effect of superior technical quality on the overall cost to the government. The Navy determined that: (1) the protester was the highest rated offerer and could provide the most efficient performance; however, its superior technical merit was not enough to justify the award; (2) the awardee's technically inferior proposal could be overcome by the application of additional contractor and government man-hours which would still cost less than the protester's best and final offer price; and (3) the awardee's proposal would be most advantageous to the government. GAO noted that, in a negotiated procurement, contracting agency officials have broad discretion in determining the use of technical and cost evaluation results; however, the contracting agency's selection of a technically inferior proposal over a technically superior proposal deviated from established evaluation criteria. GAO found that: (1) the awardee would not be able to perform the contract on a similar qualitative basis as the protester; (2) the solicitation's evaluation scheme provided that cost was of secondary importance to technical considerations; and (3) the contracting officer abused his discretion by placing primary importance on cost absent a reasonable justification for his action. Accordingly, the protest was sustained.

Mar 15, 2018

  • ORBIS Sibro, Inc.
    We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.

Mar 14, 2018

Mar 13, 2018

Mar 12, 2018

Mar 9, 2018

Mar 7, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here