Though discussions and opportunities for revised proposals can be used, SAP does not envision FAR 15 rules of discussions to apply nor provide for submission of revised proposals even though discussion and opportunities for revised proposals may occasionally occur.  If past performance is an evaluation factor a formal data base is not necessary but an evaluation can be made on such things as the CO’s personal knowledge and previous experience with the supplies or services being acquired or customer surveys.

Under streamlined evaluation and solicitation procedures for commercial items the CO is required to select the offer most advantageous to the government based on factors contained in the solicitation and to “fully document” the rationale for the decision. However the FAR does not state what is required to “fully document” the source selection rationale. In Tiger Enters. Inc. (B-293951) the GAO concluded an agency must maintain “a record adequate to allow for meaningful review.”  In e-Lynxx Corp (B-292761) where oral presentations were the only technical submissions and slides were the only evidence of the presentation, the agency’s evaluation failed to demonstrate what the protester offered during the presentation and hence the GAO ruled there was an insufficient record to allow meaningful review.  In another decision the GAO upheld the agency’s evaluation of a protester’s technical response where the agency had reasonably documented that the protester had not met the RFQ requirements.  Even though a simplified acquisition does not require detailed quotations it still remains the vendor’s responsibility to submit an adequate written quotation leaving it at risk to have its proposal downgraded or rejected if it is not adequate. If the quote is inadequate, it is not the agency’s responsibility to solicit missing information (NABCO, Inc. B-293027).

The $5 million threshold (now $5.5 million) applies to commercial items and the agency’s determination the items is commercial can be protested. However two recent cases indicate it will be difficult to successfully protest this issue.  In NABCO, the GAO rejected the protester’s contention that the agency did not formally evaluate whether the item was commercial, ruling there was no requirement that the agency either formally evaluate or document the commerciality of the item.  Similarly, in Firearms Training Sys. Inc. (B-292819), the protester complained that there was insufficient determination whether the item was commercial.  The GAO ruled that absent a solicitation provision requiring an investigation or some indication the items were not commercial there was no requirement the agency formally evaluate or document whether the item is in fact commercial. 

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}