This article is an excerpt from The Art of Tendering: A Global Due Diligence Guide, which is available for purchase.
In its November 2005 decision in YORK Building Services, Inc., the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) ordered a re-evaluation after finding that the Department of Agriculture failed to properly apply the evaluation weighting established in its solicitation documents. The dispute dealt with a Request for Proposals (RFP) for janitorial and recycling services at various government buildings in Washington, DC. The complainant, YORK Building Services, Inc., alleged improprieties in the evaluation of its proposal.
The GAO noted that the Department was required to disclose its evaluation weightings and to consistently apply those disclosed weightings in its evaluations. The GAO found that the Department failed to meet these standards:
YORK identifies a number of alleged errors in the technical evaluation. YORK argues that the record shows that the agency improperly gave the technical approach and management plan evaluation factors equal weight, rather than giving the most weight to the technical approach factor, consistent with the weighting disclosed in the RFP.
[A]n agency’s obligation to conduct an evaluation consistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP includes the importance or weighting of the factors. 41 U.S.C. §§ 253a(b)(1)(B), 253b(a) (2000); Federal Acquisition Regulation §§ 15.204-5(c), 15.304(d), 15.305(a); Dismas Charities, Inc., B-292091, June 25, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 125 at 9; see also M&S Farms, Inc., B-290599, Sept. 5, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 174 at 8. The record confirms that, in evaluating proposals, the evaluators treated the technical approach and management plan evaluation factors as having equal weight by allowing a maximum of 35 points for each. AR, Tab D, Standards for Evaluation of Proposals, at 4. This weighting was contrary to the terms of the RFP, which indicated that technical approach was the most important evaluation factor.
After finding that the Department failed to properly follow the evaluation weightings, the GAO ordered the Department to either (i) amend its weightings and seek new submissions; or (ii) maintain the existing weightings and re-evaluate the proposals in a manner consistent with those weightings.
As this case illustrates, it is critical to the transparency and integrity of an evaluation process that weightings be accurately disclosed in a solicitation document and, once disclosed, that they be consistently applied during evaluations.
