Other protests presented by CIS included unfair evaluation of OTG - another presenting company. Complaints here included vague requirements; insufficient detail as to why they rejected proposal; apparent duplicity (as in the case of implying that three of its present employees were available for position); and ambiguous and vague language in its blanket statements.

The decision was that the agency misevaluated the proposal of CIS as well as that of OTG, and that the appraisal of CIS was prejudicial. The agency was recommended to revaluate the proposals, as well as to reimburse CIS for filing fees.

The decision seems fair to me. I would add that the fifth evaluator be excluded from reappraisal, and that care be taken that all evaluators be objective to the assessed agencies.

Case 3

Using the Federal Regulation Requirement (FAR) as its basis, Information Ventures Inc. (IV) protested that Minerals Management Service (MMS) awarded its...
[ View Full Essay]