(e) At a minimum, pre-award debriefings shall include:

(1) The agency’s evaluation of significant elements in the offeror’s proposal;

(2) A summary of the rationale for eliminating the offeror from the competition . . . .

FAR §15.505(e). The agency’s preaward debriefing of BLB was consistent with these requirements. The agency explained to BLB that it was primarily eliminated from the competitive range based on its non-competitive price. It also provided BLB its evaluated price, its overall ranking based on its combined technical and price evaluation, and discussed the evaluation of BLB’s offer. Debriefing Notes, BLB. Further, consistent with the prohibition in FAR § 15.505(f), the agency did not provide BLB any detailed information relating to the remaining competitors. For example, the agency did not advise BLB of the number of remaining offerors or their identity; the content of the other proposals; the ranking of the remaining offerors; or point-by-point comparisons of the debriefed offeror’s proposal with those of other offerors. Id. In summary, the agency’s actions during the preaward debriefing were consistent with the FAR and unobjectionable. Environmental Quality Management, Inc., B-402123.4, B‑402123.6, Aug 31, 2010, 2012 CPD ¶ 79 at 4.  (Asset Management Real Estate, LLC; Wallin Residential Properties; Winn Realty & Appraisal, LLC; LaRosa Realty; IEI-CitySide, Joint Venture; One Source REO; Real Estate Resource Services, B-407214.5, B-407214.6, B-407214.7, B-407214.8, B-407214.9, B-407214.10, B-407214.11, B-407214.12, B-407214.13,B-407214.14,B-407214.15,B-407214.16: Jan 24, 2014)  (pdf)

EQ asserts that the agency improperly provided both awardees competitively useful information during their pre-award debriefings, and again during discussions, and therefore also should have provided it the same information. Specifically, the protester points out that the awardees were advised during their initial debriefings that their technical proposals were “fine” and their proposed prices were high compared to the other firms in the competition, and were again advised during discussions that their prices were high. According to the protester, it was improper for the agency not to have also provided it the same information that had been provided to the awardees, namely, that its technical proposal was “fine,” but that its price was high in comparison to the other two competitive range offerors (Offerors A and B). The protester concludes that it was improper for the agency to have advised the awardees of their relative standing among the offerors from a price and technical standpoint without also providing it the same information.

EPA’s actions in this regard were unobjectionable. First, there was nothing improper in the agency’s advising the awardees during their debriefings that their technical proposals were “fine” but that their prices were high. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.505(e)(2), expressly contemplates providing an offeror that has been eliminated from the competitive range a summary of the rationale for eliminating its proposal from further consideration, and that is all the agency did here. In effect, the awardees were advised that while their proposals contained no significant weaknesses or deficiencies from a technical standpoint that would warrant their elimination from the competitive range, their proposals instead had been eliminated from the competitive range because of their high prices. Further, consistent with the prohibition in FAR § 15.505(f), the agency did not provide the awardees any detailed information relating to the remaining competitors. For example, the agency did not advise the awardees of the number of remaining offerors or their identity; the content of the other proposals, including their proposed prices; the ranking of the remaining offerors; or point-by-point comparisons of the debriefed offeror’s proposal with those of other offerors. In summary, the agency’s actions during the preaward debriefings were unobjectionable.  (Environmental Quality Management, Inc., B-402123.4,B-402123.6, Aug 31, 2010)  (pdf)