Juarez & Associates, Inc.

B-265950.2 Feb 08, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracting officer reasonably determined that the proposals of the protester and awardee were essentially technically equal. Juarez challenges the contracting officer's determination that the protester's and CODA's proposals were essentially technically equal and the agency's evaluation of the offerors' cost proposals. The RFP provided that the technical evaluation factors were to be more important than cost. That if two or more offerors' proposals were approximately equal in technical ability. Five proposals were received in response to the RFP. Only the proposals submitted by Juarez and CODA were included in the competitive range. Discussions were held with the two offerors and best and final offers (BAFO) submitted. View Decision Matter of: Juarez & Associates, Inc. File: B-265950.2 Date: February 8, 1996 Contracting officer reasonably determined that the proposals of the protester and awardee were essentially technically equal, such that award should be made on the basis of the lower-cost proposal in accordance with solicitation's stated evaluation scheme. Attorneys DECISION Juarez and Associates, Inc. protests the award of a contract to CODA, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NCI-CO-50507-50, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for technical support for cancer communications research and program evaluation within the Office of Cancer Communications, National Cancer Institute. Juarez challenges the contracting officer's determination that the protester's and CODA's proposals were essentially technically equal and the agency's evaluation of the offerors' cost proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, sought technical and business (cost) proposals for a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The RFP required 49,000 direct labor hours to perform the tasks delineated in the solicitation's statement of work, including specified evaluation tasks. Section M of the RFP set out the following technical evaluation factors for award: technical approach (worth 45 percent of the available 1,000 technical evaluation points); capability and resources of the firm (worth 30 percent); and competence and availability of personnel (worth 25 percent). The RFP provided that the technical evaluation factors were to be more important than cost, but that if two or more offerors' proposals were approximately equal in technical ability, cost might become a significant factor in determining award. Five proposals were received in response to the RFP; only the proposals submitted by Juarez and CODA were included in the competitive range. Discussions were held with the two offerors and best and final offers (BAFO) submitted. Juarez proposed 44,000 professional and 5,000 nonprofessional labor hours for the required 49,000 labor hours, as compared to CODA's proposal of 39,000 professional and 10,000 nonprofessional hours. Juarez's proposal also included additional labor hours to conduct certain evaluation tasks included in the RFP's statement of work, which were included in Juarez's cost proposal as outside services under other direct costs. The Juarez BAFO [DELETED] received a technical score of 848 out of the 1,000 points available; CODA's BAFO (at $3.16 million) received a technical score of 841 points. CODA's proposal received the highest score (7 points higher than Juarez's proposal) for technical approach, the RFP's most important technical evaluation factor. Both offerors' proposals received the same score under the capability factor. Juarez's proposal received a higher technical point score (14 points) than the CODA proposal for personnel, the least important factor. Under the technical approach factor, the evaluators found that Juarez's proposal provided a strong technical approach, but that it offered only a limited focus in response to discussion questions about special populations and provided "textbook" descriptions of proposed outcome evaluation programs without any innovation or relevant samples; a concern was noted regarding the low level of effort to be provided by certain experts. CODA's proposal was rated high under the technical approach factor for its proposed outcome evaluation schema and full-coverage evaluation program, as well as its strong understanding and experience in working with diverse populations; proposal weaknesses were cited for failing to give more comprehensive descriptions of certain specific experience (although good quality samples of work related to agency programs were submitted) and of low literacy issues. Under the personnel factor, the Juarez proposal was credited for providing lists of task assignments and management of work loads, but the evaluators cited as a weakness the project director's limited availability for the first 6 months of the contract.