RFP Evaluation, a conflicted evaluator, and post-submittal lobbying

Screen the evaluator before final scoring is locked. Prior employment alone may be manageable, but current stock ownership plus a prior employment relationship creates at least an appearance of bias and may be a conflict under the authority's ethics policy. Ask the evaluator to complete a written conflict disclosure. The procurement officer and legal counsel should determine whether the interest is remote or disqualifying. If the evaluator can continue, impose controls: no discussion of the incumbent's proposal outside committee sessions, no access to competitor pricing, and a documented recusal from any deliberation involving the incumbent if the incumbent is an offeror. If the conflict cannot be managed, replace the evaluator and rescore with a properly constituted committee. Preserve the initial scores only as a record; do not let a tainted evaluator's scores become the basis for award.

The data-ownership ambiguities go to the substance of the requirement, and the missing cybersecurity certification is a required submittal item. Those are not minor clerical clarifications. If the authority opens discussions, it must do so with all responsible offerors in the competitive range, give each an equal opportunity to revise, and then request final proposal revisions. Awarding to A without discussions would be vulnerable because the record would not show whether A's higher technical score was based on an ambiguous proposal or whether B could have improved. The chair's preference for A is not itself a best-value determination. The authority should establish a competitive range, issue written discussion questions limited to the weaknesses and ambiguities, set a common deadline, and evaluate final revisions against the RFP criteria. If the authority instead chooses not to hold discussions, it must document why the ambiguities can be resolved without allowing a revision of the offer and why the omission is not material; given the cybersecurity certification, that position is hard to defend.

The council member should immediately refer the lobbyist to the procurement officer and avoid responding on the merits. Log the contact, including date, sender, and content, in the procurement file. If the RFP or authority policy prohibits ex parte communications during evaluation, remind all offerors of that rule and apply it consistently. The award decision must rest on the RFP criteria, not on political contact. For the tradeoff, prepare a best-value narrative that compares A and B on technical factors, price, risk, and total cost. Explain how A's 18% price premium is or is not justified by superior technical merit, and whether B's 12-point technical gap creates performance risk or added transition cost. If discussions occur, use final revised proposals in the analysis. The narrative should be specific enough that a protest reviewer can follow the reasoning without reconstructing it from raw scores.