Request for Guidance

[jonmjohnson]

Experts,

I could use your help identifying the threads that contain the answer to this question. I have searched and have not seen the smoking gun I am looking for. This is associated with FAR Part 8.

What does an elevator do when they have knowledge of a shortcoming of a solution that is not clearly explicit in a response while their CO is telling them they can only evaluate based on the contents of the response and evaluation criteria?

You can drive a truck through FAR Part 8 with the amount of flexibility it gives a CO to make a good sound business decision, but I find some treat the evaluation component without much logical basis. It is as if some expect the evaluation team to take all of their past knowledge and expertise, put it on a shelf, and not to use it during the course of the evaluation, looking only at the responses and the criteria.

There is confusion on this issue in the field. What say you?

[Jamaal Valentine]

Are you referring to using extrinsic evidence/knowledge during evaluations?

[jonmjohnson]

Yes sir.

[Jamaal Valentine]

Since you specifically asked for threads, you may find what you want in the following (post #14 forward, particularly 18, and 20):

http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2638-do-i-need-to-remove-offerors-identifying-information-from-proposals-before-tech-eval/

*see also:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/510/508767.pdf (Page 4)

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/CAD_2014_Ch8.pdf (Pages 8-39)

[Guest Vern Edwards]

What does an [evaluator] do when they have knowledge of a shortcoming of a solution that is not clearly explicit in a response while their CO is telling them they can only evaluate based on the contents of the response and evaluation criteria?

Jon:

It is "well-established" in GAO case law that evaluators are not limited to the information contained within the "four corners" of a proposal, and may rely on their personal knowledge when evaluating proposals. They may not rely on personal knowledge to credit or discredit an offeror on the basis of something that it has not actually proposed, but they may rely on personal knowledge to assign an offeror a strength or weakness based on something that an offeror has proposed, even if the offeror has not been explicit about the strength or weakness. See, e.g., Interfor U.S., Inc., B-410622, Dec. 30, 2014:

We have held that an agency is not bound by the “four corners” of an offeror's proposal, and may properly use information known by its own evaluators, as with any other references, to aid in the evaluation of proposals. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., B-406411, B-406411.2, May 25, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 164 at 11; Park Tower Mgmt., Ltd., B-295589, B-259589.2, Mar. 22, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 77 at 6.

[jonmjohnson]

Jammal and Vern...thank you.

Here is the embarrassing part. The first citation that you list, Jammal, was in response to the same question posed me in a separate thread.

I must be getting old. Suffering from CRS.

Thank you both gentlemen.