Other protests presented by CIS included unfair evaluation of OTG - another presenting company. Complaints here included vague requirements; insufficient detail as to why they rejected proposal; apparent duplicity (as in the case of implying that three of its present employees were available for position); and ambiguous and vague language in its blanket statements.

The decision was that the agency misevaluated the proposal of CIS as well as that of OTG, and that the appraisal of CIS was prejudicial. The agency was recommended to revaluate the proposals, as well as to reimburse CIS for filing fees.

The decision seems fair to me. I would add that the fifth evaluator be excluded from reappraisal, and that care be taken that all evaluators be objective to the assessed agencies.

Case 3

Using the Federal Regulation Requirement (FAR) as its basis, Information Ventures Inc. (IV) protested that Minerals Management Service (MMS) awarded its services on an unrestricted basis instead of exclusively setting it aside for small business concerns. IV also challenged other aspects of the solicitation, as well as asserting that the agency failed to conduct sufficient market research prior to finalizing its selection. The contracting officer (of MMS) replied that based on her previous research it was found that small business concerns could not fulfill her particular requirements. IV, however,...

The Small Business Administration Bureau (SBA) also affirmed that the agency's research was inadequate including the fact that it failed to approach the SBA for references (according to requirements in FAR that necessitate that very reasonable effort be made to find small businesses capable of out requirements). And that its research was skimpy and incomplete. Finally, and even more egregiously, at least two of the small business concerns had been found to be capable and qualified for meeting requirements, and even thoguh each had been asked to and had submitted a proposal, the contracting officer had overlooked these proposals.
The GAO sustained the protest and recommended that the contracting officer cancel her solicitation and re-issue it as reserved for small businesses, particularly so since two small businesses were already found capable of meeting the requirements. IV should also be reimbursed for its filing fees.

I agree with the GAO's submission and analysis of the case. It seems to me, however, that testimonies other than (or supplementary to) the SBA should have been included. The SBA is a subjective voice. Objective testimonies could have represented scientific agencies that are authorities on research and that are disenfranchised from matters represented in the case.