Dating service questionnaire 16a Sex chats without privates mobile
In sum, the agency essentially argues that it treated all vendors equally as to its screen selection counting, but it has no record to support the validity of its count, other than the worksheets showing the total count. She consolidated the evaluation sheets for insertion into the SSD. The Large and X-Large bags have weak glue and are not tamper-resistant.
In contrast, Swets has provided detailed, screen-by-screen walkthroughs of the Lexi-Comps and F&Cs products in support of its assertion that the agencys screen selection counts are inaccurate. A summary document was provided to the team during and at the conclusion of the evaluation process. The X-Large bag has a lighter inner liner that allows you to read the contents in the package. Bags are not tamper-resistant, contain poorly constructed side seams and mailing labels do not stick.
(Swets Information Services, B-410078: Oct 20, 2014) (pdf) Both protesters point out, and the agency concedes, that handwritten evaluation sheets from the evaluation team members, although compiled into a summary document, were not themselves retained. In these circumstances, given the comprehensive nature of the agencys summary evaluation documents, there is an adequate supporting rationale in the record for us to conclude that the agency had a reasonable basis for finding the protesters bags noncompliant with the specification requirements. (Custom Pak, Inc.; M-Pak, Inc., B-409308, B-409308.2, B-409308.3, B-409308.4: Mar 4, 2014) (pdf) Clark/F-P also challenges the State Departments evaluation of Harberts final revised proposal, where the agency increased Harberts proposal ratings from good to excellent under Areas 1, 3, 4, and 6. For example, in Area 3, cost management and value engineering, the TEP initially assessed Harberts proposal as having 2 exceptional strengths and 1 weakness, and assessed Clark/F-Ps proposal as having 5 exceptional strengths and 3 strengths.
The protester complains that there is no documentation in the record explaining how Harberts revisions adequately addressed the weaknesses the TEP had identified in Harberts initial proposal and why Harberts revised proposal merited an excellent rating under these areas. See AR, Tab 8, TEP Initial Consensus Evaluation Report, at 15, 35-36. Adjectival ratings are merely a guide for intelligent decisionmaking. Holdings, LLC; King Farm Assocs., LLC, B-404896 et al., June 20, 2011, 2011 CPD 128 at 14.
However, we will question an agencys evaluation conclusions where they are unreasonable or undocumented. The past performance evaluations for the other offerors included essentially identical language regarding the presumed relevance of their past performance, and showed that the TEP past performance evaluation focused primarily on the quality of the offerors past performance records.
As set forth above, the RFP here required the agency to consider whether an offeror and its major subcontractors demonstrated relevant corporate experience providing criminal justice related support services and associated support systems required under the work statement in section C. Thus, the agencys cost evaluation appears inconsistent with the technical evaluation finding that these positions are not necessary to perform the SOW. 2, at 2), but the agency did not assign the proposal a weakness in its technical evaluation for this identified overstaffing, as it did in evaluating the ITT proposal in the area of computer operators.
In particular, Swets contends that it demonstrated that both its quoted products reached the RFQ-required information in fewer screen selections than the VAs count.
Swets also argues that the agencys evaluation of the number of screen selections required to reach the required information was unreasonable, disparate from how the agency treated Cox, and undocumented. As explained below, we have been unable to determine from this record how the agencys evaluators reached the number of screen selections for each of Swets databases at the product demonstration. As detailed above, the solicitation established that the VA would use a product demonstration as the primary means for determining the technical merit of each vendors offering(s), and that the agencys evaluation would be based on, among other things, the number of screen selections required to reach the desired information. When conducting the product demonstration, the agency evaluators and vendor representatives were not in the same physical location; rather, the demonstrations were conducted using screen-sharing software (e.g., Go To Meeting, or Web Join).
In addition, and more fundamentally, the complete absence of any critical analysis or qualitative assessment of the proposals under the remaining elements of the technical evaluation factor other than staffing also leaves us to guess at the reasonableness of the agencys broader conclusion that all six proposals submitted were technically equivalent under all of the RFPs enumerated technical evaluation elements. (M7 Aerospace LLC B-411986, B-411986.2: Dec 1, 2015) (pdf) Swets protests that the VA misevaluated the protesters Lexi-Comp and F&C databases, as presented in the product demonstration.Although we recognize that this procurement was conducted as a request for quotations among BOA holders under FAR subpart 16.7, it is a fundamental principle of government accountability that an agency be able to produce a sufficient record to allow for a meaningful review where its procurement actions are challenged. 24, 2011, 2011 CPD 50 at 6; e-LYNXX Corp., B-292761, Dec. In reviewing an agencys procurement actions, we do not limit our review to contemporaneous evidence but consider, as appropriate, hearing testimony and the parties arguments and explanations. The Swets representative states that, after navigating to the required information, he orally confirmed to the VA evaluators his count of the number of screen selections required (he also stated that the VA evaluators did not dispute his count). In contrast to Swets claim, the agency evaluators state that there was no verbal counting of screen selections by the Swets product representative. Protest, July 11, 2014, Declaration of Swets Government Contracts Director, July 11, 2014, at 3.The VA evaluators kept worksheets of their product demonstration observations, including the total count of the number of screen selections for each of the 15 items that were researched during the demonstration. Swets declares that for all demonstration items, its total Lexi-Comp screen selection count is 52 as compared to the VA total screen selection count of 74, and that its F&C screen selection count is 51 as compared to the VAs count of 61. 1, Screen Counts for Lexi-Comp and F&C (Swets Count vs. In response, the VA asserts that its evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and that its counting standards were consistently applied to all product demonstrations.Here, the record does not provide the underlying bases for the TEPs decision to increase the ratings of Harberts proposal to excellent after revised proposals.As noted above, the TEP final consensus evaluation report merely states that the TEP accepted that the offeror corrected the weakness and the ranking was changed to Excellent without providing additional explanation.