The protester objected to the award of a contract, alleging that the agency abused its discretion and utilized improper procurement procedures in the award of the contract. The allegation that technical questions posed during negotiations transfused to other offerers unique concepts from the protester's proposal was without merit since the record did not indicate that there was any such transfusion. The fact that members of the evaluation panel who were employed by the user gave the protester a lower technical score that did those members who were not employed by the user did not indicate a bias against the protester. The award of a negotiated cost-type contract to the offeror receiving the highest technical rating even though it was not the low offerer was a proper exercise of administrative discretion since the proposals were not substantially equal technically. The agency's failure to indicate the relative importance of price in the evaluation criteria was contrary to good procurement practice, but the award was not illegal since it was based on the technical superiority of the successful offerer's proposal rather than on the negative findings with respect to the protester's cost estimates.
Skip to Highlights