GAO Defines the Meaning of “Comparative Assessment.” It’s More Open-Ended than You’d Think.

The issue in this protest boiled down to whether the solicitation required a comparative assessment. The protester said no because the solicitation did not require the agency to compare proposals to one another. But GAO found that a “comparative assessment” encompasses more than merely comparing proposals to one another.

JCS Solutions, LLC, GAO, B-422249 

• Protest Argument – The protester challenged the terms of the solicitation. The solicitation stated the agency would award a task order to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal (LPTA) that received a substantial confidence rating in past performance. The protester argued the while the solicitation sought to make an LPTA award, the solicitation did not meet FAR and DFARS criteria for an LPTA award. 
• Agency Response – The agency argued that despite referencing an LPTA, the solicitation did not provide for an LPTA award. The agency reasoned that if a solicitation requires a comparative assessment of past performance, it cannot qualify as an LPTA. Thus, if the solicitation was not an LPTA, then the agency had not violated the FAR’s and DFARS’s LPTA provisions. 
• The Rule – GAO noted that under the FAR if an agency proceeds with LPTA source selection, there can be no “comparative assessment” of past performance. Conversely, if there is a comparative assessment of past performance, then the solicitation is not an LPTA. So the question in the case boiled down to whether the solicitation required a comparative assessment. 
• Solicitation Required Comparative Assessment – The protester argued the solicitation did not contemplate a comparative assessment because it did not require the agency to compare proposals against each other. GAO, however, did not think the definition of a comparative assessment was limited to a comparison between proposals. Rather, GAO opined that a comparative assessment can also encompass evaluating proposals on a scale. Here, the solicitation required the agency to evaluate past performance on a scale and thus required a comparative assessment. The solicitation didn’t require an LPTA source selection. GAO denied the protester’s argument.

The protester is represented by Laurel A. Hockey and Daniel Strouse of Cordatis LLP. Debra J. Talley and Alex M. Cahill of the Army represent the agency. GAO attorneys Jacob M. Talcott and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the decision. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor 

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/GAO-JCS-Solutions.pdf” title=”GAO JCS Solutions”]