In drafting a solicitation, a contracting agency is required to clearly set forth in the solicitation all evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award as well as the relative importance of these factors and subfactors. An agency may not give importance to specific factors, subfactors or criteria beyond that which would reasonably be expected by the offerors under the solicitation terms. So, for example, the GAO held that an agency was required to disclose that an apparently minor subfactor that was intended to evaluate a particular type of experience actually constituted 40 percent of the technical evaluation (Lloyd H. Kessler Inc. B0-284693).

Even if law or regulations do not require disclosure of factors and the weights assigned to them, fundamental fairness may dictate the disclosure of some information. For example, in spite of the fact the solicitation stated that simplified acquisition procedures were being used and that FAR 12.602 indicated an agency need not disclose the relative weight of evaluation factors it was unreasonable for the agency not to disclose relative weightings since basic fairness dictated such disclosure when the agency required offerors to prepare detailed written proposals addressing unique government requirements. However, the agency’s decision to assign a weight of 5 percent to a solicitation’s past performance evaluation factor did not violate FAR 12.206 because the provision is discretionary, not mandatory (Finlen Complex Incl. B-288280).

In determining evaluation factors and the weights to be assigned to them an agency has broad – but not unfettered – discretion. An agency’s determination in this regard is not objectionable as long as the factors "reasonably relate" to the agency’s needs in choosing a contractor that best meets the government’s stated requirements. For example, a solicitation’s past performance evaluation criteria required offerors to list at least five contracts within the $5 million to $10 million range. The GAO ruled the listings were not unnecessarily restrictive even though it would exclude small emerging businesses because the record showed the provision was reasonably related to the agency’s needs because it was held the five contracts allowed the agency to evaluate a contractor’s overall performance and performance trends (C. Lawrence Constr. Co. Inc., B-289341). In another example the agency’s decision to limit the past performance evaluation factor to corporate experience and not the key personnel was considered reasonable since the history of the corporate entity was considered more indicative of performance success since key personnel might not stay long enough (Olympus Bldg. Servs. Inc., B-282887). Finally there is no limitation on the weight an agency can assign particular factors in an evaluation and there is nothing improper in placing additional emphasis on past performance under other technical evaluation factors as long as the approach is stated in the RFP (American Med. Info. Servs. B-288627).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}