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 2001-03-07 monographic deposited born digital 16 p. GA 1.13:B-286931 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-B-286931 P0b002ee18fd45006 f:286931 DGPO 2016-06-23 2016-06-23 GAOREPORTS-B-286931 machine generated eng fdlp COMPTROLLERDECISION GAOREPORTS-B-286931 B-286931 Comptroller General Decision 1. Protester's allegation that the evaluation of its technical proposal as posing a "high" risk contradicts the rating of its cost proposal as "low" risk is denied, where the record shows that technical and cost proposals were rated separately by different evaluation teams which considered different factors, and the different ratings merely reflect the independent judgments of the evaluators and are reasonably supported by the record.<p/>2. Agency was not required to conduct discussions regarding two weaknesses identified in the protester's proposal regarding its past performance since the two weaknesses (which pertained to only 2 out of 20 performance questionnaire items) were not considered significant, and protester's performance record was rated acceptable overall. Agencies are not required to point out every element of acceptable proposals that receive less than the maximum evaluation rating.<p/>3. Protester's allegation that the agency improperly conducted discussions is denied, where the record shows that during several rounds of discussions, the agency reasonably led the protester into areas of its proposal requiring revision, and the protester's failure to make those revisions because it feared jeopardizing its favorable cost rating reflected its own business judgment, rather than any improper agency action.<p/>4. Discussions with offeror whose otherwise acceptable proposal took exception to certain solicitation requirements were unobjectionable where agency reasonably determined that proposal could be made acceptable through discussions and that exceptions were primarily the result of defects in solicitation; ultimate decision to amend the solicitation to cure defects was unobjectionable since agency advised all offerors of the changed requirements and all offerors responded to the amended solicitation in final proposals.<p/>5. Allegation that contracting officer's (CO) multiple roles impermissibly compromised his independence is denied, where there is no evidence in the record that the CO had any influence over the evaluation of technical or cost proposals, or that the CO's carrying out of his responsibilities in any way compromised the source selection. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-B-286931/html/GAOREPORTS-B-286931.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-B-286931/pdf/GAOREPORTS-B-286931.pdf GAO/B-286931 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-B-286931 Comptroller General Decision GAO/B-286931; Digital Systems Group, Inc., B-286931; B-286931.2, March 7, 2001;