Marine Research Specialists

B-265869 Jan 02, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Set forth a best value evaluation scheme whereunder technical and management factors were weighted equally to cost. The SOW further advised that "reports of the results of previous surveys were available upon request.". Identified the specific reports that were available on request. Other potential offerors who requested these survey reports after the RFP was issued on July 11 were provided them by the contracting office in a timely manner. MRS argues that the reports generated under the incumbent contract were critical to producing a superior proposal under this best value procurement. That MRS was denied an equal opportunity to participate in the competition because of the agency's failure to provide this information in a timely manner. [6] The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA). View Decision Matter of: Marine Research Specialists File: B-265869 Date: January 2, 1996 Agency improperly failed to provide a common basis for competition or obtain full and open competition where it timely provided some offerors with reports prepared under the incumbent contract, which the solicitation stated would be made available, but advised the protester to seek the information under the Freedom of Information Act; only provided the protester with this material information 2 days before the proposal due date; and then declined to extend the proposal due date, which effectively resulted in the protester's being unable to submit a proposal on a common basis. Attorneys DECISION Marine Research Specialists (MRS) protests the agency's failure to timely provide certain information under request for proposals (RFP) No. 50-DGNF-5-00079, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for a marine recreational fishing survey. We sustain the protest. NOAA issued the RFP on July 11, 1995, to obtain a contractor to conduct the 1996 "National Marine Fishery Statistics Survey" (NMFSS), with options to conduct the survey in 1997 and 1998. [1] The RFP contained detailed instructions for the preparation of technical, management, and price proposals, and set forth a best value evaluation scheme whereunder technical and management factors were weighted equally to cost. The RFP statement of work (SOW) with accompanying appendices detailed the requirements for conducting the survey, including the sampling population, the survey procedures, and the required questions. The SOW further advised that "reports of the results of previous surveys were available upon request." Amendment No. 0001, issued on August 15, changed the closing date from August 26 (a Saturday) to August 25, and identified the specific reports that were available on request. In February 1995, NOAA notified the marine research firms on its mailing list, including MRS, of the upcoming procurement and sent each a copy of the current contract's SOW. [2] On July 6 (just prior to issuance of the RFP), MRS contacted the contracting officer to request various documents related to the incumbent contract, including the reports generated under that contract. [3] Instead of furnishing MRS with the reports, the contracting officer advised MRS that these reports, as well as the additional requested information, had to be obtained from the agency's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 (1994), office, not the contracting office. Other potential offerors who requested these survey reports after the RFP was issued on July 11 were provided them by the contracting office in a timely manner. As directed by the contracting officer, MRS immediately filed a FOIA request for the documents with the NOAA FOIA office on July 7. On July 24, the FOIA officer requested that MRS pay certain fees to offset the cost of releasing the documents, which MRS paid the next day by overnight mail. MRS never received any further response from the FOIA office. On August 21 and 22, MRS contacted the contract specialist and contracting officer to complain that it had not received the reports or other information requested pursuant to FOIA and that this put MRS at a disadvantage in submitting a proposal. According to MRS, it sought more time to submit a proposal in view of the impending August 25 closing date. [4] The agency then provided MRS with the voluminous reports by overnight mail on August 22. MRS timely protested on August 24 requesting that the closing date be extended. The agency did not extend the closing date and has received proposals. [5] MRS protests that the agency failed to timely provide it with the reports referenced in the RFP's SOW, which prevented MRS from submitting a competitive proposal.