This article is an excerpt from The Art of Tendering: A Global Due Diligence Guide, which is available for purchase.
In a series of recent bid protests, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued multiple re-evaluation and re-tender orders after finding widespread flaws across a broad range of federal government evaluation processes.
For example, in its November 2019 decision in IAP Worldwide Services, Inc., the GAO determined that the Department of the Army improperly awarded an information technology support services contract. After determining that the Department relied on irrelevant prior experience considerations and then failed to properly document its assessment of proposed subcontracting strategies, the GAO ordered the Department to conduct a re-evaluation.
In its November 2019 decision in Addx Corporation, the GAO found that the Department of the Army improperly awarded a contract for professional system support services. After finding that the Department relied on hidden evaluation criteria and failed to conduct a proper price analysis to justify its decision to select the lowest price over the top technical score, the GAO sustained the complainant’s protest and issued a re-evaluation order.
In its March 2020 decision in Deloitte Consulting LLP, the GAO found that the Department of the Treasury improperly awarded a financial management services contract to a proponent that submitted a conditional bid and that the Department failed to justify why it bypassed a higher scoring proponent for a lower-priced proposal. After finding that the Department improperly accepted a non-compliant conditional offer, and that it provided no evidence of having conducted an analysis to justify bypassing the top-scoring proposal, the GAO vetoed the contract award and issued a re-evaluation order.
In its April 2020 decision in MetroStar Systems, Inc., the GAO found that the Department of Justice improperly awarded a contract for information technology support services. After finding that the winning bidder had improperly relied on affiliates who would not be involved in contract performance to meet certain of its certification and prior experience requirements during the evaluation, the GAO ordered the Department to conduct a new evaluation and then revisit its contract award decision after conducting that revised evaluation.
In its May 2020 decision in ASRC Federal Data Network Technologies, LLC, the GAO found that the Department of the Army improperly awarded an information technology support services contract. After finding that the solicitation contained an insufficient level of detail regarding required work effort to enable bidders to properly cost the fixed-price and time and materials portions of the contract, the GAO ordered the Department to revise its solicitation requirements and conduct a re-evaluation of new proposals.
In its May 2020 decision in Leidos Innovations Corporation, the GAO found that the Department of the Army improperly awarded a logistics support services contract in support of rotary wing aircraft in Afghanistan. After finding that evaluators breached the process rules by failing to evaluate information collected from the complainant during formal question-and-answer sessions, and after finding that the deletion of those session records made it impossible to conduct a re-evaluation, the GAO ordered the Department to conduct a new tendering process for the award of the contract.
In its May 2020 decision in Battelle Memorial Institute, the GAO determined that the Department of Health and Human Services improperly awarded a contract for consultation, research, and development support services for the government’s influenza epidemic and pandemic response efforts. After finding that the Department’s evaluators inconsistently scored similar weaknesses in the winning proposal and the complainant’s proposal, the GAO ordered the Department to re-evaluate the proposals on a consistent basis and then make a new contract award decision.
In its May 2020 decision in Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., the GAO found that the United States Marine Corps improperly awarded a contract for financial statement audit support services. After finding that the Marine Corps was unable to justify the need to retain the services of an independent public accountant directly from the contractor or its affiliates, but not from subcontractors, the GAO ruled that the requirement constituted an unduly restrictive specification and ordered the Marine Corps to revise the solicitation document and seek new bids.
In its June 2020 decision in Computer World Services Corporation, the GAO found that the Department of Homeland Security improperly awarded a contract for centralized service desk information technology support services. After finding that the Department changed its evaluation criteria mid-process without affording firms the opportunity to submit new quotations, the GAO ordered the Department to conduct a re-evaluation based on its original evaluation criteria, or revise and release new criteria and allow firms to resubmit new bids based on the new evaluation requirements.
In its June 2020 decision in M.C. Dean, Inc., the GAO found that the National Security Agency improperly awarded a contract for security system maintenance, installation, and distribution services. After finding that the winning bidder misrepresented the availability of its proposed project manager when it failed to disclose that the individual had been denied a required security clearance, the GAO ruled that the contract award was invalid and ordered the Agency to revisit its evaluation decision.
In its June 2020 decision in Avionic Instruments LLC, the GAO found that the Department of the Navy improperly awarded a contract to replace analogue inverters on its UH-1 Y helicopter fleet with digital inverters. After finding that the Department’s records showed no evidence of assessing the required experience of the winning bidder, the GAO ordered the Department to conduct a re-evaluation and make a new contract award decision.
In its July 2020 decision in Leumas Residential, LLC, the GAO found that the Department of the Navy improperly awarded a ground maintenance services contract for Navy facilities in Virginia and Maryland. After determining that the Department’s evaluation records failed to justify the evaluation conclusions in multiple scored areas, the GAO ordered the Department to re-evaluate the complainant’s technical proposal, properly document those re-evaluation findings, and then make a new sourcing decision.
In its July 2020 decision in Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc., the GAO found that the State Department improperly awarded an information technology support services contract. After finding that the Department improperly accepted the awardee’s prior experience on a project valued at $1 million as being “the same or similar” as the project experience required for the $19 million project, the GAO ordered the Department to re-evaluate the competing quotations, properly document that review, and then make a new contract award decision.
As this series of decisions illustrates, flawed evaluation processes expose government institutions to bid protest challenges, to the risk of having their contract award decision invalidated, and to the avoidable costs and operational delays associated with running a re-evaluation process. Public institutions should invest more resources in training staff on how to conduct proper evaluations the first time around so they can avoid becoming the next flawed evaluation case study.
