Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Sylvia Yi's previous work at the Department of Homeland Security prepare her for working with government contractors at Bass, Berry & Sims? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

FCPA: 2016 Year in Review & 2017 Enforcement Predictions

A review of trends and developments in FCPA as well as a look ahead into what to expect for 2017. This report aims at providing corporate leaders and companies with the knowledge they need to comply with the FCPA and avoid litigation in 2017.

Read now

GovCon Blog: Learning from Bid Protests: Award to Higher-Priced, Higher-Rated Proposal Requires Consideration and Documentation


June 19, 2015

In best value procurements, the procuring agency generally has a great deal of discretion in selecting which proposal represents the best value to the government. Part of that discretion is the ability to select a proposal that is higher in price, and higher rated technically, than the competition. However, an agency cannot simply select a higher-priced offeror without considering the benefits of the higher-priced proposal and documenting why its technical superiority warrants paying the higher price.

This issue was at play in a recent GAO protest, DKW Communications, Inc. The solicitation in question here was issued by DARPA for various unclassified information technology services and support under GSA's Alliant Small Business Government-wide Acquisition Contract. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single cost-plus-award-fee task order to the offeror representing the best value to the government.

Because the awarded contract was going to be cost based (as opposed to fixed-price), the agency determined each offeror's probable cost based upon their proposed approach. To the extent an offeror's proposed cost differed from its probable cost, the agency considered that difference to be the "Cost Risk." In making its best value determination, the agency considered each offeror's technical rating, past performance rating, and cost risk. After its initial evaluations, the agency narrowed its consideration of award down to three offerors. The agency ultimately selected Agile Defense, Inc., whose proposal was higher-rated and higher-priced than the other two offerors under consideration.

The protester, DKW Communications, challenged the award to Agile, arguing that the agency failed to give meaningful consideration to its lower priced proposal, which was approximately 15% lower than Agile's price. GAO sustained DKW's protest, finding that the agency failed to conduct a proper best value determination.

Where an agency selects a higher-priced, higher technically rated proposal as the best value, it must first consider the relative merits of the lower-priced proposal(s). In doing so, the agency must consider the overall cost to the government, and determine whether the technical superiority represented by the higher-rated proposal is worth paying the higher price. Most importantly, this consideration must be documented. 

The record here showed that the agency's best value tradeoff decision was lacking. GAO found that the agency’s best value "analysis" merely consisted of looking at the adjectival ratings assigned to each offeror, as well as the cost risk of each proposal. Moreover, the entirety of the best value tradeoff decision consisted only of two simple sentences stating that Agile had the expertise to perform the requirements and that its proposed costs were reasonable and realistic. This falls far short of the requirements imposed upon a procuring agency in making a rational best value determination. The record failed to demonstrate any meaningful consideration of the technical merits of the various proposals, or why Agile's higher technical score warranted paying the approximately 15% price premium. As a result, the protest was sustained.

While procuring agencies certainly have discretion to make an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal, they cannot do so without first justifying why such a decision is reasonable. The agency must go beyond the evaluation ratings, and actually consider the advantages and disadvantages offered by each proposal. Unsuccessful offerors finding themselves in similar situations would be wise to request a debriefing, when possible, and seek an explanation from the agency as to how it compared proposals and came to its best value decision. An agency's failure to provide a rational justification for its best value tradeoff could lead to a sustainable protest action.

Read more about government contracts on

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.