Extract to table

Under Illinois procurement law and analogous federal best-value procurement standards, a source selection authority has discretion to select a higher-priced, technically superior offeror in a best-value tradeoff — but the agency must document a rational, coherent basis for doing so

Even under a deferential standard of review, the SSA must provide a rational, documented explanation for why the marginal qualitative advantage in one mid-weight factor justifies paying $12

Under Illinois procurement law and well-established federal precedent (applied by analogy in Illinois proceedings where state caselaw is underdeveloped), all material evaluation criteria must be stated in the solicitation so that offerors can tailor their proposals accordingly

The institutional dynamic creates a baseline presumption in favor of the agency's procurement decision, which the protester must overcome with compelling evidence and legal argument

BHV is likely to argue that MTDC is essentially asking the reviewing tribunal to reweigh the evaluation factors and substitute its judgment for the SSA's — a characterization we must rebut by focusing on the objective deficiencies in the SSA's tradeoff rationale rather than on our subjective disagreement with the outcome