Dunn Engineering Associates

B-266273 Feb 09, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that discussions were not meaningful because the agency did not inform the protester that evaluators were concerned that the protester's proposed level of effort was too low and that the protester had a history of performance problems is denied where the record of oral and written discussions shows that the agency led the protester to reexamine the amount of professional hours it proposed and advised the protester that the evaluators were concerned with the possibility of late delivery. The protester contends that the agency's negotiations with it were not meaningful and led it to unnecessarily increase its offered price. The handbook will be used by asset owners as a reference document and training aid for freeway operations and management. View Decision Matter of: Dunn Engineering Associates File: B-266273 Date: February 9, 1996 Protest that discussions were not meaningful because the agency did not inform the protester that evaluators were concerned that the protester's proposed level of effort was too low and that the protester had a history of performance problems is denied where the record of oral and written discussions shows that the agency led the protester to reexamine the amount of professional hours it proposed and advised the protester that the evaluators were concerned with the possibility of late delivery, and the protester had the opportunity to respond in a best and final offer. Attorneys DECISION Dunn Engineering Associates protests award of a contract to Texas A & M Research Foundation by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DTFH61-95-R-00128. The protester contends that the agency's negotiations with it were not meaningful and led it to unnecessarily increase its offered price. We deny the protest. Issued on April 27, 1995, the RFP solicited proposals for developing a new, updated freeway management handbook that included current technologies and procedures on a variety of topics such as conceptual development, design, construction, operations, maintenance, work zones, and system expansion. The handbook will be used by asset owners as a reference document and training aid for freeway operations and management. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract and delivery of the handbook within 18 months after award. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on two technical factors: (1) responsiveness to the RFP's technical requirements and (2) sufficient resources to complete the job satisfactorily and on schedule, and on cost. The RFP stated that technical merit was considered more important than cost in the award decision. The RFP also stated that past performance would be reviewed but was considered less important than technical merit or cost. Four proposals were received by the June 8, 1995, closing date. After evaluating initial proposals, the agency determined that three were technically acceptable and included them in the competitive range. Negotiations were held with all competitive range offerors in July, and best and final offers (BAFO) were received from all three firms by the July 27 closing. After BAFOs were evaluated, the agency determined that Texas A & M's proposal represented the most advantageous offer because the proposal had received the highest technical score and offered the lowest total price. Accordingly, the contract was awarded to Texas A & M. Dunn contends that the agency's discussions with it were not meaningful. Dunn states that in its letter notifying Dunn of the award the agency criticized the firm's proposal because the professional resources allocated to the effort were insufficient to satisfactorily fulfill the contract requirements on schedule. Dunn contends, however, that it was not told during discussions that this was a concern of the agency's evaluators. Dunn also states that, during negotiations, the agency requested more effort from Dunn's principal investigators, thus causing Dunn to unnecessarily increase its price. [1] Agencies are required to conduct meaningful discussions with all competitive range offerors. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., B-255286.2, Apr. 12, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 306. Discussions are considered meaningful where contracting officials advise offerors of deficiencies in their proposals and afford offerors an opportunity to revise their proposals to satisfy the government's requirements. Id. The agency in this case did hold meaningful discussions with the protester. The record shows that the evaluators prepared a number of discussions questions/requests for clarification for Dunn and based their discussions on them. Among other things, FHWA asked Dunn: "Please discuss your rationale regarding the proposed professional staffing.