The Evaluator's Outlier Score and the Undisclosed Sibling
An agency evaluates four proposals for a facilities maintenance contract using a best-value tradeoff. Five evaluators score technical and past performance. Offeror B is the incumbent. Evaluator 3 gives B an 'unacceptable' past-performance rating based on a dispute four years ago that is not in CPARS and was not raised in B's proposal or references. The other four evaluators rate B 'good.' Evaluator 3 also gives Offeror C the highest technical score. After evaluations close, the CO learns that Evaluator 3's sibling is a vice president at Offeror C. Evaluator 3 did not disclose the relationship. The consensus meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. The source selection plan requires consensus ratings and a documented tradeoff decision; it does not address conflicts of interest. The CO must decide how to proceed before consensus and award.
1. What are the two distinct issues with Evaluator 3, and why does each matter?
Read the worked answer
There are two issues. First, Evaluator 3 used personal knowledge of a four-year-old dispute that was not in CPARS and not in the proposal or references. Past-performance evaluations must be based on relevant, documented information and must be capable of being explained in the consensus record. Undisclosed personal knowledge can introduce facts the offeror had no chance to address.
Second, Evaluator 3's sibling is a vice president at Offeror C, and the evaluator did not disclose it. That is an apparent conflict of interest that affects impartiality. It matters especially because Evaluator 3 gave Offeror C the highest technical score and Offeror B an outlier low past-performance rating. The two issues are separate: one is evidentiary, the other is ethical and impartiality-related. Both must be addressed before consensus.
2. What should the CO do before the consensus meeting? Consider exclusion, re-evaluation, documentation, and communication.
Read the worked answer
The CO should remove Evaluator 3 from the evaluation immediately and preserve all records. The CO should consult legal and ethics officials and the source selection authority. Because the conflict affects both Offeror C and Offeror B, the CO should not simply drop Evaluator 3's scores and average the rest without review.
The safer corrective action is to appoint a replacement evaluator and re-evaluate the affected proposals, or re-evaluate the entire competition if the taint cannot be isolated. The CO should document the conflict, the disclosure, the removal, and the corrective action. The CO should also review whether Evaluator 3 influenced other evaluators. Consensus must be rebuilt on documented evidence, not on the outlier score. The CO should not communicate the conflict details to offerors beyond what the solicitation and law require.
3. If the CO proceeds without corrective action, what risks arise?
Read the worked answer
Proceeding without corrective action risks a protest that the award was tainted by an undisclosed conflict and by reliance on undisclosed adverse past-performance information. The agency could be required to re-evaluate or re-solicit. There is also an ethics risk and a loss of confidence in the source selection.
If Offeror B is excluded or downgraded based on the outlier score, B may challenge the evaluation as arbitrary. If Offeror C wins, the conflict may be used to attack the award. The CO's best protection is a timely, documented corrective action before award.