Miltope Corporation (B-422799; B-422799.2)

Miltope Corporation (B-422799; B-422799.2)
Photo by Vertex Designs / Unsplash

Category: Discussions, Technical Evaluation, Best-Value Tradeoff

Date: November 7, 2024

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422799%2Cb-422799.2

You should not care.

Miltope Corporation protested Army's award of a contract to DRS Network & Imaging Systems, LLC, for fire control systems for mortars, claiming that discussions were misleading and unequal, evaluations of proposals were unreasonable, and the best-value tradeoff was flawed. GAO found Army’s discussions were meaningful, equal, and not misleading. It rejected claims of evaluation errors, noting that concerns raised by the protester were addressed during discussions, and the Army's ratings adhered to solicitation criteria. GAO also upheld the best-value tradeoff decision, concluding that the Army reasonably selected the higher-priced, higher-rated proposal for its superior technical value.

The protest was denied. Miltope failed to demonstrate competitive prejudice; its arguments often stemmed from misinterpretations of the solicitation or selective readings of evaluation documents. Remember: Agencies enjoy broad discretion in best-value procurements, especially when technical factors outweigh cost, provided evaluations are reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.

Digest

  1. Protest challenging agency’s conduct of discussions is denied where the record demonstrates the discussions were meaningful, equal, and not misleading; typographical error in discussion letter did not competitively prejudice the protester.
  2. Protest challenging evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows the evaluation largely was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and to the extent evaluation errors occurred they did not result in competitive prejudice to the protester.
  3. Protest challenging the best-value tradeoff is denied where the record reflects the source selection authority was aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal when selecting a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award.