Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC, B-413464, .2 (Nov. 4, 2016) (nothing in record shows agency conducted a required best-value tradeoff analysis between awardee's  highest-priced, highest technically-rated proposal and protester's lower priced, lower technically-rated proposal)

Tribalco, LLC, B-414120, .2 (Feb. 21, 2017) (agency engaged in disparate treatment of offerors by overlooking same type of flaws in awardee's Integrated Master Schedule for which agency had downgraded protester's proposal)

CSR, Inc., B-413973, .2 (Jan. 13, 2017) (agency engaged in disparate treatment of offerors in past performance evaluation by limiting review of protester's CPARs to projects specifically identified in its proposal, without such a restriction on review of awardee's CPARs; best-value tradeoff analysis offered no explanation for finding awardee's corporate experience superior when the two firms had been rated equally in this area by the evaluators)

Patriot Solutions, LLC, B-413779 (Dec. 22, 2016) (agency improperly converted the best-value tradeoff competition set forth in the solicitation into a lowest-priced, technically acceptable competition)

Xtreme Concepts Inc. B-413711 (Dec. 19, 2016) (agency improperly used neutral past performance rating to lower protester's evaluation and exclude it from the competitive range)

Target Media Mid Atlantic, Inc., B-412468.6 (Dec. 6, 2016) (flawed cost evaluation: agency failed to evaluate the realism of the awardee’s cost proposal in accordance with its proposed technical approach and failed to evaluate the awardee’s professional employee compensation plan in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation)

Vencore Services and Solutions, Inc., B-412949, .2 (July 18, 2016) (agency failed to correct problem after it engaged in misleading discussions with protester based on faulty, inflated agency cost estimate)

EFW Inc., B-412608, .2 (Apr. 7, 2016) (misleading discussion did not alert protester to agency's true concerns; faulty past performance evaluation obscured differences between proposals; assignment of significant weakness in price realism based upon considerations not properly within scope of price realism analysis)

GiaCare and MedTrust JV, LLC, B-407966.4 (Nov. 2, 2016) (price realism evaluation of awardee failed to consider discrepancies between its price proposal and technical approach; agency used labor rates in price realism analysis that did not match those actually proposed by offerors; no basis to support agency's conclusion that awardee's proposed indirect rate was not unrealistically low; agency did not properly consider awardee's unrealistically low direct and indirect proposed rates in evaluating risk of its technical approach)

Jacobs Technology, Inc., B-413389, .2 (Oct. 16, 2016) (agency's evaluation failed to reasonably consider an aspect of the awardee’s technical submission that indicated a lack of technical understanding)

Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, B-412990.2 (Oct. 17, 2016) (no basis in record to explain agency's decision to assign "Good" mission capability rating to awardee despite evaluators' conclusion that one of its staffing methodologies should be rejected)

CALNET, Inc., B-413386.2, .3 (Oct. 28, 2016) (no basis for agency's conclusions that offerors' proposed costs were realistic or that four proposals were equivalent under non-cost evaluation factors)

NCI Information Systems, Inc., B-412870.2 (Oct. 14, 2016) (nothing in the record to document that the agency meaningfully considered awardee's potential impaired objectivity OCI or its proposed mitigation measures prior to award; record is insufficient to support agency's conclusions that the awardee's proposed price: (i) was commensurate with the proposed technical approach and reflected realistic labor category pricing; and (ii) was not clearly unrealistic)

Phoenix Air Group, Inc., B-412796.2, .3 (Sep. 26, 2016) (agency's decision that awardee met offer acceptability criteria was unreasonable because offeror provided inconsistent information concerning identify of proposed aircraft; agency applied unstated evaluation criteria in downgrading protester's proposal)

Halbert Construction Co., B-413213 (Sep. 8, 2016) (agency's evaluation of protester's past performance was unreasonable because agency engaged in disparate treatment of protester's and competitor's proposals; agency's tradeoff analysis was unreasonable because it was based upon a non-existent distinction in the definitions of the assigned adjectival ratings)

Engility Corp., B-413202, .2 (Sep. 2, 2016) (in determining firm was nonresponsible because it did not have required facility security clearance, agency relied on incomplete information and speculation, ignored evidence suggesting  agency's conclusion was incorrect and failed to contact firm to resolve issue)

CACI, Inc.-Federal; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-413028, .2, .3 (Aug. 3, 2016) (solicitation for cost-reimbursable task orders does not require offerors to propose labor rates for individual tasks and, therefore, does not include means for Government to compare probable costs of competing proposals; agency failed to adequately justify its rationale for excluding from the competition any proposals with a total proposed price that is 50 percent below the trimmed average total proposed price)

AT&T Government Solutions, Inc., B-413012, .2 (July 28, 2016) (record does not demonstrate that the agency reasonably evaluated a potential unequal access to information conflict arising from the relationship between the awardee and one of its proposed subcontractors; past performance evaluation contained errors in the assignment of adjectival ratings, which were subsequently relied upon by source selection authority in the award decision)

Professional Service Industries, Inc., B-412721.2, .3, .4 (July 21, 2016) (awardee's proposed Program Manager failed to meet solicitation requirement for management experience)

MicroTechnologies, LLC, B-413091, .2  (Aug. 11, 2016) (agency's evaluation of the awardee’s proposed professional employee compensation plan  was not adequately documented; data relied upon by the agency did not provide a meaningful basis to evaluate the awardee’s proposed compensation; and agency acknowledges it mistakenly relied upon incorrect data from salary survey)

Alutiiq Banner Joint Venture, B-412952, .2, .3, .4 (July 15, 2016) (agency improperly credited member of awardee's joint venture for past performance of which there was no record; awardee was ineligible for award of 8(a) set-aside because it had not submitted addendum to 8(a) joint venture agreement to SBA for approval as required by SBA regulations causing the SBA to rescind approval of the joint venture)

Arcadis U.S., Inc., B-412828 (June 16, 2016) (no rational basis to downgrade otherwise meritorious technical proposal for fixed-price task order on the basis of allegedly higher costs of proposed approach; agency's evaluators provided no rational explanation for disregarding lack of project experience of awardee; source selection decision based on these and other defects lacked rational basis)

Valor Healthcare, Inc., B-412960, .2 (July 15, 2016) (agency failed to follow solicitation requirement that it compare awardee's proposed pricing to its technical approach for purposes of price realism analysis)

Veterans Evaluation Services, Inc., et al., B-412940, et al. (July 13, 2016) (agency's "Good" Past Performance rating of awardee was unreasonable because it was based on performance of mentor firm that awardee did not plan to utilize for current contract work; agency's price evaluation methodology did not provide reasonably accurate information concerning the relative total price of competing proposals; agency engaged in misleading discussions by failing to inform offerors that, after initially finding their prices reasonable, agency had changed its mind and determined them to be unreasonably high)

ASRC Communications, Ltd., B-412093.4 (July 1, 2016) (agency failed to reevaluate portions of the awardee's proposal in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme)

Patricio Enterprises, Inc., B-412738, .2 (May 26, 2016) (material misrepresentations in awardee's proposal concerning availability of personnel tainted evaluation)

Patricio Enterprises Inc., B-412740, .3, .4 (May 26, 2016) (agency's evaluation of past performance was unreasonable because it actually downgraded protester for submitting three more past performance references than the awardee did, especially when the additional references were relevant and were judged either exceptional or very good in quality)

DKW Communications, Inc., B-412652.3, .6  (May 2, 2016) (awardee violated proposal preparation instructions requiring single-spacing by using compressed line spacing, which allowed it to squeeze more information into technical proposal that had a 10-page limit. 

Deloitte Consulting, LLP, B-412125.2, .3 (Apr. 15, 2016) (agency improperly concluded that one of awardee's proposed key personnel met the experience requirements of the solicitation; contemporaneous record insufficient for GAO to assess adequacy of agency's evaluation of relevant past performance; agency engaged in unequal discussions regarding past performance)

Paragon Technology Group, Inc., B-412636, .2 (Apr. 22, 2016) (agency conducted misleading discussions by directing the protester to remove certain assumptions from its proposal, when those assumptions were not the agency's actual concern with the proposal; agency’s decision to assess the relevance of past performance using a value 200 percent larger than the value of the solicited effort was unreasonable and inconsistent with the requirements of the solicitation) 

Crowley Logistics, Inc., B-412628.2, .3, .4 (Apr. 19, 2016) (agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester because agency did not alert protester to what agency evaluated as a significant performance risk) 

M7 Aerospace LLC, B-411986, .2 (Dec. 1, 2015) (no evidence in contemporaneous record that agency complied with solicitation evaluation scheme which contemplated a qualitative comparison of various approaches proposed by offerors)

Innovative Test Asset Solutions, LLC, B-411687, .2 (Oct. 2, 2015) (agency improperly "inverted" the evaluation scheme and used cost risks identified only in the cost realism anaysis to assign technical risk in two areas of the technical evaluation where the evaluators had not identified any technical weaknesses)

Sterling Medical Corp., B-412407. .2 (Feb. 3, 2016) (agency improperly credited awardee for features unrelated to evaluation criteria and neglected to downgrade it for instances where it failed to provide required information)

Arctic Slope Mission Services, LLC, B-410992.5, .6 (Jan. 8, 2016) (agency gave undue emphasis to one of the evaluation subfactors, and treated offerors unequally by reading some offerors’ proposals expansively and giving offerors the benefit of the doubt, while applying a much stricter standard when evaluating other proposals; agency failed to evaluate relevance of past performance adequately)

SRA International, Inc. B-410973, .2 (Apr. 8, 2015) (agency conducted discussions only with awardee and allowed only awardee to revise proposal)

RELI Group, Inc., B-412380  (Jan. 28, 2016) (latent ambiguity in solicitation's instructions concerning submission of prime and subcontract references for evaluation of relevant experience, which was not discovered until proposals were evaluated, requires agency to issue clarification and then permit offerors opportunity to submit revised proposals)

Intelsat General Corp., B-412097, .2 (Dec. 23, 2015) (agency engaged in misleading discussions by failing to inform protester of change in agency's interpretation of solicitation requirements after agency held discussions; agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal  neither reasonable nor consistent with terms of solicitation regarding requirements for satellite coverage and capacity and required documentation; agency’s price realism analysis flawed because awardee’s proposal did not meet solicitation’s technical requirements for required documentation and complete regional satellite coverage)

Cascadian American Enterprises, B-312208.3, .4 (Feb. 5, 2016) (agency downgraded protester's proposal in the Key Personnel area without giving it the same opportunity as the awardee had  to address weaknesses in proposal through discussions; agency rated the small business protester's proposal unacceptable in the Experience area, which is a responsibility-type factor, without referring it to SBA for CoC)

Castro & Co., LLC, B-412398 (Jan. 29, 2016) (evaluation of protester's proposal under Technical and Past Performance factors not supported in record; source selection decision lacked rational basis where Contracting Officer selected awardee’s quotation on the basis of its higher numerical score, without documenting any consideration of the basis for the score, the merits of competing quotations, or whether any advantages of the awardee’s quotation outweighed its higher price)

ASRC Communications, Ltd., B-412093, .2 (Dec. 23, 2015) (no basis in record to support agency's decision that awardee's revised proposal had cured material defect in its original proposal that would have precluded award)

AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-411481.3 (Jan. 6, 2016) (labor category proposed by awardee for task order award under FSS contract did not meet requirements of solicitation)

Export 220Volt, Inc., B-412303.2 (Jan. 20, 2016) (awardee failed to comply with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criterion that required offerors to provide product literature to substantiate the acceptability of their proposed products)

Deloitte Consulting, LLP, et al., B-411884, .2-.6 (Nov. 16, 2015) (record did not show why agency credited awardee with its parent company's experience under Corporate Experience factor;  awardee took exception to solicitation's data rights requirements; agency's evaluators made unsupported assumptions concerning awardee's proposed labor mix; agency evaluated quotations from various competitors unequally where record does not show basis for distinguishing among them)

CORTEK, Inc., B-412047, .2, .3  (Dec. 17, 2015) (agency improperly (i) accepted proposal that included references to employees who did not meet solicitation's experience requirements, (ii) allowed awardee to exceed page limitation in solicitation by one page, and (iii) used information on additional page, which should have been ignored, to reach favorable evaluation of awardee's past performance; record produced by agency so heavily redacted that GAO could not evaluate its response to other protest allegations)

West Coast General Corp., B-411916.2 (Dec. 14, 2015) (agency failed to enforce solicitation requirement that offered G&A rates be supported by (and evaluated on basis of) certified financial statements or DCAA audit report; award determination based entirely on mechanical comparison of total technical scores and G&A rates)

Smartronix, Inc.; ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., B-411970, .2, .3, .4 (Nov. 25, 2015) (agency’s cost realism evaluation failed to reasonably assess whether vendors’ proposed direct labor rates were realistic and consistent with the vendors’ various proposed approaches)   

Protect the Force, Inc., B-411897.2, .4 (Nov. 24, 2015) (awardees' proposals did not meet solicitation requirement that they  demonstrate how they met particular solicitation requirement and agency's finding that these proposals were technically acceptable lacked a rational basis)

DRS Technical Services, Inc., B-411573.2, .3 (Nov. 9, 2015) (agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposed level of effort was unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation; agency’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI) investigation was not reasonable as it failed to meaningfully consider whether the awardee’s performance of a portion of the work required under the anticipated task order would result in an impaired objectivity OCI)

Celta Services, Inc., B-411835, .2 (Nov. 2, 2015) (SSA improperly considered weaknesses in protester's proposal that had been resolved during discussions; point scores were not applied consistently among offerors; record not sufficient to conclude that evaluation of awardee's Past Performance was reasonable)

Logistics Management International, Inc., et al., B-411015.4, .5, .6 (Nov. 20, 2015) (agency's reevaluation of awardee's past performance in response to prior successful GAO protests still was objectionable in that it gave credit to a number of orders that did not meet the solicitation's definition for treating orders as a series and a single reference; agency's reevaluation also involved disparate treatment of offerors because it denied one protester same opportunity to submit additional information afforded to another offeror)

W.P. Tax & Accounting Group, B-411899  (Nov. 13, 2015) (agency improperly rejected proposal for unrealistically low price when solicitation did not alert bidders that price realism would be evaluated)

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., B-411771, .1 (Oct. 20, 2015) (agency incorrectly interpreted spreadsheet submitted by protester as proposing uncompensated overtime and, therefore, improperly made upward adjustment to protester's estimated costs as part of cost realism analysis)

Coastal International Security, Inc., B-411756, .2 (Oct. 19, 2015) (collective bargaining agreement incorporated in solicitation included latent ambiguity for rates in two labor categories, which offerors interpreted differently, which, in turn, affected agency's price realism and best value trade-off evaluations)

Trandes Corp, 411712, .2, .3 (Oct. 13, 2015) (several of awardee's proposed key personnel failed to meet material experience requirements of solicitation)

Tantus Technologies, Inc. B-411608, .3 (Sep. 14, 2015) (agency failed to consider whether, under the personnel and management factor, awardee’s proposal to relocate a significant number of employees to cheaper labor market after the first year of the task order posed a risk to awardee’s ability to retain qualified staff; agency did not evaluate corporate experience and or the relevance of past performance in a manner consistent with the RFP;  awardee's proposal to hire incumbent staff at substantially lower rates than they were currently being paid resulted in unrealistically low labor rates that agency should have adjusted upward in conducting its cost realism evaluation)

FCi Federal, Inc., B-408558.7, .8 (Aug. 5, 2015) (in undertaking corrective action nine months after original award, agency failed to consider whether, since awardee had been sold to another company, awardee’s proposal still reflected the manner in which the contract would be performed and the resources, experience, and past performance to be relied upon in the performance of the contract)

Starry Assocs., B-410968.2 (Aug. 11, 2015) (agency did not properly evaluate whether personnel proposed by awardee were available and qualified to perform required work)

Lilly Timber Services, B-411435.2 (Aug. 5, 2015) (solicitation did not alert offerors that agency intended to evaluate price realism)

Metis Solutions, LLC, et al., B-411173.2, et al. (July 20, 2015) (agency downgraded proposal for failure to provide item not required by solicitation; agency assigned weaknesses to two offerors, but not to the awardee, for the same proposal content; unexplained discrepancies between technical evaluation report and source selection evaluation report; lack of consistency in agency's evaluation of relevancy of past performance of awardee versus other offerors; lack of basis in record for performance confidence ratings; source selection decision failed to perform price versus technical tradeoff analysis and failed to evaluate proposals individually)  

Cubic Applications, Inc., B-411305, .2 (July 19, 2015) (agency engaged in unequal evaluations when it rated protester's optional labor rates as exceptionally low and risky while not evaluating the awardee's even lower optional labor rates in that manner)

B&B Medical Services, Inc.; Ed Medical, Inc., B-409705.4, .5 (June 29, 2015) (agency failed to conduct price realism analysis contemplated by solicitation even though awardee's price was much lower than that of other offerors and the Government's estimate)

International Waste Industries, B-411338 (July 7, 2015) (agency conducted discussions with awardee, allowing it to correct unacceptable aspects in its quotation, while failing to conduct discussions with protester)

DKW Communications, Inc., B-411182, .2 (June 9, 2015) (agency failed: (i) to consider cost to Government as part of cost/technical trade-off analysis: (ii) to document other aspects of proposal evaluation; and (iii) to consider protester's relevant, positive past experience)

Caddell Construction Co., B-411005.1, .2 (Apr. 20, 2015) (agency's determination that competitors met requirements of Security Act concerning adequate financial resources and total business volume was unreasonable and not supported by the record), decision essentially overturned by Court of Federal Claims

Alcazar Trades, Inc., B-410001.4 (Apr. 1, 2015) (agency performed price realism analysis required by solicitation without taking protester's unique staffing approach)

Hanel Storage Systems, L.P., B-409030.2 (Sep. 15, 2014) (agency could not issue purchase order to vendor whose quotation did not comply with material requirement of RFQ)

eAlliant, LLC, B-407332.6, .10 (Jan. 14, 2015) (no basis in record for changing former awardee's evaluation scores upon reevaluation) 

CFS-KBR Marianas Support Services, LLC; Fluor Federal Solutions LLC, B-410486, .2, .3 (Jan. 2, 2015) (agency mechanically used only government estimate to evaluate cost realism of each offeror's proposed staffing in initial proposals, without regard to varying proposed technical approaches, and then used that flawed analysis to conduct misleading discussions regarding sufficiency of proposed staffing)

Glen Mar Construction, Inc., B-410603 (Jan. 14, 2015) (agency’s price evaluation improperly included price of options agency knew with reasonable certainty it would not have sufficient funds to purchase)

CGI Federal, Inc., B-410330.2 (Dec. 10, 2014) (price evaluation scheme did not match agency's changed ordering strategy)

Quality Services International, LLC, B-410156, .2, .3 (Nov. 3, 2014) (agency did not evaluate awardee's experience in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme)

Premiums & Specialties, Inc., B-410247 (Nov. 13, 2014) (unreasonable to reject low quotation for failure to return call asking for confirmation of quotation within an hour when solicitation did not advise bidders that such responses would be required)

Computer Sciences Corp., et al., B-408694.7-.11 (Nov. 3, 2014) (flawed cost realism, past performance, technical, and tradeoff evaluations)

Swets Information Services, B-410078 (Oct. 20, 2014) (insufficient documentation in record to determine whether agency's evaluations of vendors' product demonstrations were reasonable)

FCi Federal, Inc., B-408558.4, .5, .6 (Oct. 20, 2014) (affirmative responsibility determination failed to consider allegations of fraud against awardee's parent with which it was closely connected)

Federal Builders, LLC-The James R. Belk Trust, B-409952, .2 (Sep. 26, 2014) (agency accepted proposal that did not include a clear commitment to pay the wage rates required by the solicitation for reconstruction of the existing building it offered) 

Electrosoft Services, Inc., B-409065, .2, .3 (Jan. 27, 2014) (flawed evaluations of (i) experience of awardee's proposed program manager; (ii) protester's past performance; and (iii) relative technical merits of protester's and awardee's approaches)

CPS Professional Services, LLC, B-409811, .2 (Aug. 13, 2014) (agency failed to follow solicitation requirement to assess relative relevancy and quality of offerors' past performance submissions)

Paradigm Technologies, Inc., B-409221.2, .3  (Aug. 1, 2014) (awardee's proposal failed to satisfy material solicitation requirement concerning key personnel)

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, B-409537, .2 (June 4, 2014) (no rational basis for source selection authority's conclusion that awardee's Past Performance distinguished its proposal from protester's, especially enough to offset protester's technical superiority)

Intelligent Decisions, Inc., et al., B-409686, .2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14 (July 15, 2014) (performance confidence evaluation failed to consider all elements required to be evaluated by solicitation, and agency failed to meaningfully consider price in its final source selection decision)

Native Resource Development Co., B-409617.3 (July 21, 2014) (agency acted unreasonably in finding protester's proposed staffing level  to be weakness without providing protester with reasonable notice of, and the opportunity to address, agency’s internal staffing estimate and its own overall number and without providing analysis as to specific areas in which protester’s final staffing numbers were considered insufficient; protester's contention that its Past Performance should have received the "Outstanding" rating sustained because agency did not attempt to rebut it)

Iron Vine Security, LLC, B-409015 (Jan. 22, 2014) (agency failed to follow solicitation requirement to conduct price realism analysis of proposed labor rates)

Risk Analysis and Mitigation Partners, B-409687, .2 (July 15, 2014) (agency's use of unstated evaluation criteria to assign weaknesses to protester's proposal)

Raytheon Co., B-409691, .2 (July 9, 2014) (no rational basis for certain discriminators found by SSA between protester's and awardee's proposals and improper credit to awardee for experience of affiliate not shown to contribute to proposed contract work)

Alutiiq Pacific, LLC, B-409584, .2 (June 19, 2014) (agency improperly credited awardee with experience of affiliated firms even though its proposal did not explain how they would contribute significantly to the work; agency improperly credited awardee with proposing to retain large proportion of incumbent staff even though its proposal showed it intended to pay them significantly less than incumbent had; agency treated awardee and protester disparately in evaluation)

Marathon Medical Corp., B-408052 (June 4, 2014) (agency permitted awardee, but not protester, to submit information establishing acceptability of its proposal)

Gaver Technologies, Inc., B-509535 (June 3, 2014) (no basis for source selection authority's failure to credit protester's proposal with innovative approaches found by evaluators to be significant strengths; awardee was credited with a 30-day phase-in plan when it only proposed a 60-day phase in (as did the protester))

WAI-Stoller Services, LCC; Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc., B-408248.6 et al (May 22, 2014) (several discriminators used to distinguish between two similarly rated proposals do not withstand scrutiny, and were the result of unreasonable conclusions, unequal evaluations, or inaccurate judgments regarding the differences between the two proposals)

System Studies & Simulation, Inc., B-409375.2, .3 (May 12, 2014) (agency's actual needs and awarded contract were for less than 30% of amount solicited)

Prism Maritime, LLC, B-409276.2, .3 (Apr. 7, 2014) (no basis for SSA's evaluation that disagreed with all negative findings of evaluators; flawed cost realism evaluation and improper use of proposed rather than evaluated prices in source selection decision)

McGoldrick Construction Services Corp., B-409252.2 (Mar. 28, 2014) (agency improperly downgraded proposal based on unstated evaluation criterion concerning quality control staffing requirements)

Solers Inc., B-409079, .2 (Jan. 27, 2014) (record is inadequate to establish rational basis for agency's evaluation of awardee's proposed labor mix for cost-reimbursable and fixed-price CLINs or realism of proposed level of effort for fixed-price CLINs; agency's evaluation conclusions made only after protest filed were not adequate response to protester's contention that agency's original evaluation failed to credit its technical proposal for items that exceeded solicitation requirements)

Motorola Solutions, Inc., B-409148, .2 (Jan. 28, 2014)(awardee's proposal did not include required evidence that it could actually obtain the equipment it proposed to use and that was material to the acceptance of its proposal)

Kardex Remstar, LLC, B-409030 (Jan. 17, 2014) (agency failed to identify deficiency during discussions that rendered quotation unacceptable)

Piquette & Howard Electric Service, Inc., B-408435.3 (Dec. 16, 2013) (after initial evaluation, agency conducted discussions with eventual awardee and then allowed only that firm to revise its technical proposal)

Wyle Laboratories, Inc., B-408112.2 (Dec. 27, 2013) (agency's evaluation did not take into account effects of awardee's disclosed plans to split into two companies, one of which would actually perform the contract)

BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc., B-408565, .2, .3 (Nov. 13, 2013) (agency did not evaluate technical risk in accordance with solicitation requirements; agency did not adequately document its rationale for eliminating multiple technical risks and weaknesses from its evaluation of awardee's technical proposal; agency improperly credited awardee with outdated corporate experience)

SRA International, Inc., B-408624, .2 (Nov. 25, 2013) (agency's conclusion that protester failed to provide required information regarding small business subcontracting lacked rational basis; by assigning a significant weakness to protester while failing to do so for other offerors with deficiencies of similar import, agency did not evaluate offers on equal basis)

Logistics 2020, Inc., B-408543, .3 (Nov. 6, 2013) (agency failed to perform price realism analysis and failed to conduct qualitative evaluation of proposed personnel, both of which violated solicitation's evaluation scheme)

AXIS Management Group LLC, B-408575 (Nov. 13, 2013) (flawed price proposal evaluation ignored innovative technical approach)

Trailboss Enterprises, Inc., B-407093 (Nov. 6, 2013) (record is devoid of evidence that evaluators conducted qualitative evaluation and comparison of proposals, which was required by solicitation)

Savvee Consulting, Inc., B-408416, .2 (Sep. 18, 2013) (use of unstated evaluation criterion; flawed evaluation under Corporate Experience and Personnel factors)

Coburn Contractors, LLC, B-408279.2 (Sep. 30, 2013) (agency used unstated evaluation factor in faulting offeror for failing to provide list of subcontractors with its proposal, when solicitation did not require such a submission or state that it would be evaluated)

Triad International Maintenance Corp., B-408374 (Sep. 5, 2013) (evaluation of protester's past performance failed to reasonably consider its work as incumbent; agency improperly determined protester's proposed price was moderate risk where solicitation did not provide for price realism evaluation)

Sayres & Assocs. Corp., B-408252, .2 (Aug. 1, 2013) (Navy misevaluated proposal by concluding that two tables presented in proposal were contradictory)

Sentrillion Corp., B-406843.3, .4, .5 (Apr. 22, 2013) (agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester because it failed to alert it during discussions to a deficiency in its proposal that became one basis for the agency's subsequent finding that the proposal was unacceptable)

West Sound Services Group, LLC, B-406583.2, .3 (July 3, 2013) (agency failed conduct meaningful discussions and no record that agency adequately considered non-price proposal)

IAP World Services, Inc., EMCOR Government Services, B-407917.2, et al. (July 10, 2013) (agency credited joint venture with corporate experience and past performance of affiliates of one joint venture partner when record did not show that affiliates would contribute to contract performance; agency did not treat offerors on fair and equal basis because it failed to credit protester for offering same feature that was evaluated as a strength in awardee's proposal; source selection official failed to recognize and consider features in protesters' proposal that resulted in their higher evaluation rankings)

IBM-U.S. Federal, B-407073.3, .4, .5, .6 (June 6, 2013) (agency failed to conduct price evaluation of protester and awardee on equal basis and relaxed material solicitation requirement only for awardee during post-selection negotiations)

NOVA Corp., B-408046, .2 (June 4, 2013) (record inadequate to explain whether source selection official considered the significant evaluated differences between awardee and the protester's past performance records)

Exelis Systems Corp., B-407111.5, .6, .7 (May 20, 2013) (agency's excellent rating of awardee's proposed staffing for contract years after base year lacks rational basis where awardee significantly reduced proposed staff in out years without explanation)

Global Dynamics, LLC, B-407966 (May 6, 2013) (record did support weaknesses found by evaluators in protester's proposal)

Nuclear Production Partners LLC, et al., B-407948, et al. (Apr. 29, 2013) (agency failed to follow solicitation requirement to evaluate feasibility of offerors' proposed cost savings, but assumed all proposed savings were feasible)

Esegur-Empresa de Seguranca, SA, B-407847, .2 (Apr. 27, 2013) (solicitation that stated proposals "may" be rejected as unrealistically low required agency to perform price realism analysis)

Grunley Construction Co., B-407900 (Apr. 3, 2013) (agency did not explain how it concluded protester's schedule did not include float, when it clearly did)

IBM Corp., U.S. Federal, B-406934.2, .3, .4 (Oct. 3, 2012) (record does not support (i) agency's evaluation of protester's proposal in several respects and (ii) discriminators agency allegedly found between protester's and awardee's proposals)

Bahrain Telecommunications, Co. B.S.C., B-407682.2, .3 (January 28, 2013) (agency's evaluation lacked rational basis where quotation did not commit to comply with material solicitation requirements) 

BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, Inc., B-405664, .2 (December 2011) (agency credited successful offeror with proposed approach that offeror did not firmly commit to complete to agency's satisfaction; agency improperly failed to credit protester with relevant experience of proposed personnel)

Nexant, Inc., B-407708, .2 (Jan. 30,2013) (lack of meaningful discussions by failing to specifically alert protester to two weaknesses that ultimately contributed to its failure to win award; agency's numerical scoring methodology was not reasonable and contained numerous errors; cost/technical tradeoff decision did not adequately explain reason for selecting higher-cost proposal)

Mission Essential Personnel. LLC, B-407474, 407493 (Jan. 7, 2013) (during discussions agency failed to alert protester to two weaknesses in its proposal that eventually led to its rejection; agency's evaluation of "fill rates" was not in accordance with evaluation scheme)

J. Squared Inc., dba University Loft Co., B-407302 (Dec. 17, 2012) (nonconforming quotation failed to comply with material solicitation requirement and, therefore, could not form basis for award)

Veterans Healthcare Supply Solutions, Inc., B-407223.2 (December 13, 2012) (record did not support agency's conclusion that offeror's proposed product was not "equal" to the specified brand name)

Exelis Systems Corp., B-407111, et al., (Nov. 13, 2012) (agency's technical evaluation was not in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme and treated offerors unequally)

Science Applications International Corp., B-407105, .2 (Nov. 1, 2012) (agency did not consider awardee's particular technical approach in evaluating its technical proposal or in price realism assessment)

Emergint Technologies, Inc., B-407006 (Oct. 18, 2012) (technical evaluation was flawed because (i) there was no basis in the record for deficiencies agency found in protester's proposal and (ii) agency downgraded proposal for lack of price realism when solicitation's evaluation scheme did not provide for such analysis)

Kollsman, Inc., B-406990, .2 (Oct. 15, 2012) (lack of documentation in record to support awardee's substantial confidence rating in past performance) 

Basic Overnight Quarters, LLC, B-406964, .2 (Oct. 12, 2012) (multiple errors in evaluation of protester's proposal and unequal treatment of protester and awardee in evaluation)

Supreme Foodservice GmbH, B-405400.3, .4, .5 (Oct. 11, 2012) (agency's experience/past performance evaluation flawed where awardee's proposal given highest possible rating despite fact that none of its past contracts met dollar size requirements; record insufficient to establish whether agency's use of internally-obtained past performance evaluation in place of unfavorable information in awardee's proposal was reasonable; inconsistent evaluations of protester's and awardee's proposals under past performance factor)

IBM Corp., U.S. Federal, B-406934.2, .3, .4 (Oct. 3, 2012) (record does not support (i) agency's evaluation of protester's proposal in several respects and (ii) discriminators agency allegedly found between protester's and awardee's proposals)

Lifecycle Construction Services, LLC, B-406907 (Sep. 27, 2012) (agency's rejection of protester's proposal as unreasonably low was unreasonable where determination was based on fact that it was 15% below the median of all other proposed prices, which included proposals that were unacceptable, unreasonably high, or ineligible for award)

Orion Technology, Inc.; Chenega Integrated Mission Support, LLC, B-406769, .2, .5 (Aug. 22, 2012) (agency mechanically and unequally 
applied undisclosed staffing estimates in evaluating the offerors’ proposed staffing to determine acceptability of proposals)

Glotech, Inc., B-406761, .2 (Aug. 21, 2012) (agency failed to consider price in quotations for BPAs under FSS program)

Triumvirate Environmental, Inc., B-406809 (Sep. 5, 2012) (agency's conclusion that protester's pricing was unbalanced (too low in some cases) and post hoc rationalization that protester had used more employees than needed on prior contract were not sufficient to justify conclusion that there was a risk of higher prices to the Government; tradeoff analysis failed to adequately consider protester's price advantage) 

J.R. Conkey & Assocs. dba Solar Power Integrators, B-406024.4 (Aug. 22, 2012) (agency improperly downgraded proposal as lacking information that was, in fact, included; agency's evaluation of protester under Schedule factor was inconsistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme; agency impermissibly limited tradeoff analysis to proposals with highest technical scores, regardless of price)

NikiSoft Systems Corp., B-406179.2 (Aug. 14, 2012) (in reevaluation after earlier successful protest, there was no basis in the record to justify the agency's decision that the level of effort proposed by the protester was inadequate and should be adjusted upward)

Philips Healthcare Informatics, B-405382.2 (May 14, 2012) (awardee's final proposal revision was late; past performance evaluation was unreasonable, inconsistent with the RFP, and insufficiently documented; agency waived material solicitation requirement only for awardee)

Cyberdata Technologies, Inc., B-406692 (Aug. 8, 2012) (agency ignored FAR 8.4 requirement that price be considered in FSS solicitation for blanket purchase agreement)

The Clay Group, LLC, B-406647, .2 (July 30, 2012) (agency failed to comply with relative importance of evaluation factors stated in solicitation; agency failed to evaluate in accordance with solicitation's evaluation factors; no evidence in record that agency evaluated awardee's product sample for compliance with salient requirements stated in solicitation)

Rocamar Engineering Services, Inc., B-406514 (June 20, 2012) (agency improperly conducted second fire/burn test on protester's system after it had begun to dismantle the system)

KPMG LLP, B-406409 et al. (May 21, 2012) (agency misled protester during discussions into believing resumes were required for all proposed personnel for life of procurement; faulty cost realism analysis--no basis in record for agency's conclusion concerning cost realism of awardee's proposal, especially where its proposed cost savings depended on replacing staff whose resumes were relied on for its higher technical rating)

Tipton Textile Rental, Inc., B-406372 (May 9, 2012) (awardee's quotation failed to comply with material solicitation requirement; evaluators failed to consider protester's responses to queries during discussions; agency improperly ignored awardee's checking of "is not" small business box in small business set-aside)

Sea Box, Inc., B-405711.2 (Mar. 19, 2012) (failure of quotation to include 90-day acceptance period stated in solicitation did not render it unacceptable because quotations are not offers; awardee's failure to comply with RFQ's requirements to submit technical information  concerning its quotation meant record did not support agency's decision quotation was acceptable)

NikiSoft Systems Corp., B-406179 (Feb. 29, 2012) (agency did not meaningfully consider protester's lower price in awarding to higher technically rated proposal; agency failed to provide meaningful explanation for past performance evaluation)

The Emergence Group, B-404844.7 (Feb. 29, 2012) (successful protest against past performance evaluation in corrective action undertaken as a result of first successful protest) 

ERIE Strayer Co., B-406131 (Feb. 21, 2012) (unequal discussions; lack of meaningful discussions)

MANCON, B-405663 (Feb. 9, 2012) (acceptability of offeror's small business subcontracting plan should have been responsibility issue, not pass/fail reason for evaluating proposal as technically unacceptable)

Digital Technologies, Inc., B-406805, .2 (Feb. 6, 2011) (flawed cost realism analysis)

Y&K Maintenance, Inc., B-405310.6 (Feb. 2, 2012) (evaluation of protester's key personnel under experience subfactor was inconsistent with solicitation's stated evaluation criteria)

TriCenturion, Inc.; SafeGuard Services, LLC, B-406032, et al. (Jan. 25, 2012) (cost realism, technical, and past performance evaluations all were insufficiently documented in the record)

Standard Communications, Inc., B-406021 (Jan. 24, 2012) (lack of meaningful discussions; only awardee allowed to make material changes in its proposal that rendered originally technically unacceptable quote acceptable)

SeKON Enterprise, Inc., Signature Consulting Group, B-405921, .2 (Jan. 17, 2012) (lack of meaningful discussions: without proper analysis of proposal, agency improperly directed protester to increase its staffing (and thus its costs))

ITT Systems Corp., B-405865, .2 (Jan. 6, 2012) (no explanation in record for apparent discrepancies (and lack of logical connection) between cost and technical evaluations)

APEX-MBM, JV, B-405107.3 (Oct. 3, 2011) (agency used unstated evaluation criterion to evaluate item the solicitation did not require to be submitted with the proposals but instead suggested would be handled after award)  

The Ross Group Construction Corp., B-405180.2 (Nov. 28, 2011) (past performance evaluation lacked rational basis because awardee received superior rating despite failing to comply with solicitation's stated requirements)

North Wind, Inc;  Earth Resources Technology, Inc., B-404880.4, .5, .6 (Nov. 4, 2011) (agency improperly evaluated awardee's proposal by, in effect, waiving the page limit by allowing it to submit significant portions of its proposal in appendices without informing other offerors, who strictly complied with the page limit, that the approach taken by the awardee to provide additional information was acceptable)

Raytheon Technical Services Co., B-404655.4, .5, .6 (Oct. 11, 2011) (agency relaxed evaluation requirement for awardee by ignoring material failure to propose loaded labor rates for 20 labor categories; agency failed to provide common cut-off date for receipt of proposals; agency treated offerors unequally by giving awardee credit under management factor for similar item to that proposed by protester)

EBA Ernest Bland Assocs., P.C., B-404825.5, .6 (Oct. 11, 2011) (evaluation made without consideration of solicitation's evaluation terms)

The Emergence Group, B-404844.5, .6 (Sep. 26, 2011) (agency did not meaningfully evaluate relevance of prior contracts in past performance evaluation; agency did not evaluate protester's proposal consistently with evaluation of other offeror's proposals)

PCCP Constructors, JV; Bechtel Infrastructure Corp., B-405036, et al. (Aug. 4, 2011) (agency evaluated technical proposal for foundation design in a manner inconsistent with solicitation requirements; agency led offerors to believe they had to bid full budget amount and then credited awardee for proposing less than that; agency's investigation of OCI was inadequate because it did not consider former official's access to source selection information about procurement through prior access to documents and continuing contacts with source selection officials) 

Raytheon Co., B-404998 (July 25, 2011) (lack of meaningful discussions; improper evaluation of references under experience evaluation factor)

SafeGuard Services, LLC, B-404910 (June 28, 2011) (agency improperly rejected proposal after offeror submitted revised business proposal (containing some subcontractor spreadsheets) late; agency should have considered whether the proposal was complete even without the spreadsheets)

One Largo Metro LLC; Metroview Development Holdings, LLC; King Farm Associates, LLC, B-404896 et al. (June 20, 2011) (evaluation not in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme and failure of source selection authority to meaningfully consider evaluated differences among proposals)

Mission Essential Personnel, LLC, B-404218.2, .3 (June 14, 2011) (agency failed to evaluate resumes in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme)

MPRI, Division of L-3 Industries, Inc., B-402548 et al. (2011) (amount of agency's upward adjustment to protester's labor rates in cost realism evaluation was unreasonable)

Diebold, Inc. B-404823 (June 2, 2011) (agency materially modified solicitation's requirements only for awardee)

Solers, Inc., B-404032.3, .4 (Apr. 6, 2011) (awardee took exception to solicitation requirement to propose fixed price; flawed past performance and technical evaluations)

Medical Development International, Inc., B-402198.2 (Mar. 28, 2010) (unreasonable price evaluation; agency improperly ignored fact that awardee's proposal required agency to take certain action by specified date, which agency did not do; note decision is very belatedly published)

Technology Concepts & Design, Inc. B-403949.2, .3 (Mar. 25, 2011) (evaluation lacks a rational basis and was on a different basis than required by the solicitation)

A1 Procurement, JVG, B-404618 (Mar. 14,  2011) (no documentation in the record supporting agency's rationale for rejecting protester's fixed-price proposal as being "too low")

I.M. Systems Group, B-404583 et al. (Feb. 25, 2011) (agency did not perform required cost realism evaluation of either awardee's or protester's proposal)  

IBM Global Business Services, B-404498, .2 (Feb. 23, 2011) (agency rewarded awardee's proposal on basis of unstated evaluation criterion; agency evaluated on basis of much different quantities than those suggested in the solicitation)

Resource Dimensions, LLC, B-404536 (Feb. 24, 2011) (lack of adequate supporting rationale on the record demonstrating rational basis for agency's evaluation of protester's oral presentation)

U. S. Information Technologies Corp., B-404357, .2 (Feb. 2, 2011) (FSS best value procurement; no explanation in record why awardee's past projects were considered similar in scope and complexity as required by solicitation; flawed best-value analysis--agency failed to assess the vendors' differing strengths or otherwise explain why the quotations were technically equal) 

Northeast Military Sales, Inc., B-404153 (Jan. 13, 2011) (agency ignored adverse past performance evaluation concerning awardee so that its past performance rating of "exceptional" lacked a rational basis)