TCC protested an award for building an office to be occupied by the Justice Department because (1) the awardee failed to identify amenities (e.g. childcare facility, restaurants, etc.) it would provide and (2) inadequate discussions by the government were conducted.  For the first, the awardee in its final offer included a letter committing to provide its amenities where TCC argued had it known a letter would suffice it would have included its own adding more amenities to increase its score. TCC also argued the government failed to engage in meaningful discussions because it did not advice TCC its offer had been downgraded based on qualifications of key personnel, arguing had it known of the problem it would have substituted other personnel. The GAO agreed with TCC on both counts.  For the amenities, the GAO stated there was nothing in the solicitation that informed offerors that a mere promise would be accepted as opposed to evidence from third parties such as signed leases or construction contracts. As for discussions, the GAO ruled that it was clear that evaluation of key personnel was a “significant” subfactor of evaluation and the failure to advise TCC “was inconsistent with its obligation to conduct meaningful discussions” (New Jersey & H Street, GAO B311314).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}