United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao_comptroller_general legislative 2016-06-23 U.S. Government Publishing Office 1999-03-29 monographic deposited born digital 15 p. GA 1.13:B-281484.2 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-B-281484-2 P0b002ee18fd4595d f:2814842 DGPO 2016-06-23 2016-06-23 GAOREPORTS-B-281484-2 machine generated eng fdlp COMPTROLLERDECISION GAOREPORTS-B-281484-2 B-281484.2 Comptroller General Decision 1. Protester's contention that agency wrongly gave additional evaluation credit to a feature of the awardee's proposal that exceeded the solicitation's minimum requirements is denied where detailed technical proposals were sought, technical evaluation criteria were used to make comparative judgments about the relative merits of competing proposals, and the judgments made and credit given were consistent with the stated evaluation factors.<p/>2. Protest that awardee obtained an unfair competitive advantage by employing a former government employee who had input into developing the solicitation is denied where the employee's input was limited to participating in changes to an existing boilerplate solicitation; the employee left government service almost a full year before the solicitation was issued; and there is no showing that the employee ever received access to the content of proposals, or other inside information sufficient to establish an unfair competitive advantage.<p/>3. Contention that a price/technical tradeoff in a best value procurement improperly abandoned a predetermined tradeoff formula is denied where--although the solicitation did call for scoring price proposals--there was no indication in the solicitation that award would be made to the offeror receiving the highest overall point score, and where the contracting officer reasonably determined that despite the higher overall score given the protester's technically lower-rated, lowest-priced proposal, the awardee's technically higher-rated, higher-priced proposal presented the best value to the government.<p/>4. Protester's contention that the agency failed to properly score price proposals by awarding proportionally fewer points to higher-priced offers, as it stated it intended to do in the solicitation--a contention shown by the record to be correct--will not be sustained without a concurrent showing that, but for the agency's actions, the protester would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-B-281484-2/html/GAOREPORTS-B-281484-2.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-B-281484-2/pdf/GAOREPORTS-B-281484-2.pdf GAO/B-281484.2 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-B-281484-2 Comptroller General Decision GAO/B-281484.2; Medical Development International, B-281484.2, March 29, 1999;