Protest Alleging Evaluation Criteria Were Arbitrarily Applied

An architect-engineering (A/E) firm protested the selection of another firm for negotiation of a contract. The protester contended that evaluation criteria were applied arbitrarily so as to deprive it of selection, in spite of the fact that it was given the top rating by the A/E evaluation board. A Congressman protested to the agency on behalf of the protester, but doubt existed as to when the Congressman received the agency's reply. When doubt exists as to whether a protester knew or should have known the basis for protest, GAO resolves that doubt in favor of the protester. Therefore, the protest was considered as timely and on its merits. GAO will only question an agency's judgment if it is known to be arbitrary. After selecting the protester as the top-rated offeror, the A/E evaluation board learned that this division of a nationwide firm had been reorganized into a new and independent firm on the State level. Three board members then recommended that the second highest-rated firm be selected for negotiations. The evaluators felt that key project members of the national firm would have to be used by the protester on a consultant basis. The high rating of the protester was attributed to the national firm and not solely to the record compiled by the new division. Therefore, the national firm's record was not considered available to give the protester the same high rating. The protester's credibility was questioned because the evaluation board was not informed of the firm's reorganization. Since the evaluations, based 45 percent on experience and 15 percent on organization, showed that the two top-ranking firms were close in total score, the change in information could affect the standings. GAO held that the change in recommendation did not appear to have been arbitrary. Accordingly, the protest was denied.