Protest Centered on Alleged Misevaluation

¶ … protest centered on alleged misevaluation of the claim of a small business when, in January 2003, 9 applications were reviewed and that of Future Solutions (FSI) dismissed. FSI protested the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (BPA) to award its agreement to purchase office supplies to another corporation rather than to itself stating that it had recourse to the same resources, but that the decision was formulated on the basis of prejudice. According to the Federal Regulation Requirement (FAR), BPA should have granted small business such as FSI a chance (rather than diverting the opportunity to large corporations) where there is a reasonable expectation of receiving the same products at fair prices from smaller concerns. FSI also argued that in other manners it was likewise prejudicially evaluated.

BPA claimed that it was dismissed due to the fact that products sought were environmentally preferable office supplies that had to also fulfill other conditions and that, on the basis of competition, FSI, as opposed to the large businesses, could simply not fulfill their requirements. The EPA assessed the small business candidates not to decide which one of them to choose, but whether any of them could be selected. The small businesses were evaluated in the same manner as the large businesses were evaluated and found to be insufficient of meeting their requirements.

I tend to agree with the GAO's conclusions. In this case, as the GAO concludes, criteria for review extended equally to both large and small firms and FSI (as, too, the other small firms) simply did not meet their requirements. In this case, the specifications of FAR do not apply, since the small businesses were found inadequate of complying with the agency's requirements).

Case 2

Computer Information Specialties (CIS) insisted that the National Institute Of Health (NIH) misevaluated its application by submitting its business (telecommunications support services) to another company rather than to itself. The agency asserted that its decision was made based on the fact that the other firm promised greatest value at more reasonable prices.

Assessment of the agency's evaluation of CIS shows deficiencies and bias since in most cases narrative was frugal whilst the fifth evaluator's excessive comments regarding deficient of CIS pulled down the company's ratings. Evaluators have to follow certain guidelines (prescribed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (2000)) when evaluating, and the fifth evaluator failed to do so aside from failing to provide reasonable basis for his complaint. Furthermore, a part of the evaluation of CIS's review inaccurately reflects its proposal. There are other areas in regards to the fifth evaluator's complaint that were found lacking such as absence of evidence in regards to certain allegation, generalization, and inaccuracy in certain areas.

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