Where the award was decided
- Factor 1
- Technical and scenario · Excellent vs Good
- Factor 2
- Management approach · Acceptable vs Acceptable
- Factor 3
- Key personnel and staffing · Acceptable vs Acceptable
- Factor 4
- Corporate experience · Relevant vs Relevant
Evidence
On three of the four technical factors, the awardee (Accenture Federal Services) and the protester (SAIC) received the same rating. They differed on one: technical approach and scenario response, Excellent against Good.
Inference
The whole technical difference lived in Factor 1. A solution that is merely sound there ties; only a better answer to the scenario separates. That holds for a challenger and for an incumbent alike.
Still unknown
What in the scenario response earned Excellent. The public decision describes the protest, not the winning approach.
Proposed next step
Put the strongest solution people on the scenario, and compare at least three concepts against it before choosing one. Record why the others were set aside.
How this was found
- Published decision (GAO)Extracted the ratings table from the protest decision.Both offerors rated on each of the four factors.
- Published decision (GAO)Compared the two columns factor by factor.Three of four identical; Factor 1 differed: Excellent against Good.
- Contract award dataWalked the predecessor order's modification history.Where the scope had grown over the prior term - the operating reality a scenario answer must fit.
Inspect the source
GAO's published ratings table: Excellent and Good on technical approach and scenario response; Acceptable for both on management approach and on key personnel; Relevant for both on corporate experience.