DATEX, Inc.

B-270268.2 Apr 15, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Agency for International Development (AID) contract award for administrative, technical, and program support, contending that AID: (1) improperly based its cost realism analysis on predecessor contracts that had dissimilar work requirements; (2) should have upwardly adjusted the awardee's proposed costs for travel and the use of consultants because they were unrealistically low; and (3) should have awarded it the contract, since its combined evaluation score was higher than the awardee's evaluation score. GAO held that: (1) AID reasonably based its cost realism analysis on the predecessor contracts, since they were substantially similar in scope to the instant procurement; (2) the protester failed to present any evidence that the awardee's proposed costs were unrealistically low; (3) AID reasonably evaluated the protester's proposed costs; and (4) AID properly made award to the low bidder, since the bidders' proposals were technically equal. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: DATEX, Inc. File: B-270268.2 Date: April 15, 1996 *Redacted Decision Agency could reasonably consider the costs incurred under two similar predecessor contracts performed by the awardee and its proposed subcontractor in performing its cost realism analysis of the awardee's proposal, which was based upon a technical approach similar to that taken in the prior contracts. Protest that the award of a contract to an offeror submitting the proposal with the second-highest combined technical and cost score was improper is denied; where solicitation sets forth detailed point-scoring scheme but does not state that award will be based on high score, award may be made to the offeror submitting the lower-cost, lower-scored proposal where the agency reasonably determines that there is no significant difference in technical merit that justifies the payment of a cost premium. Attorneys DECISION DATEX, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Mendez England & Associates (MEA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. OP/A/FAO-95-P-002, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development for administrative, technical, and program support for the agency's Bureau of Humanitarian Response, Office of Food for Peace. DATEX challenges the evaluation of its and MEA's cost proposals, and the agency's selection of MEA's lower cost proposal for award. We deny the protest. [1] The RFP, issued as a competitive set-aside under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(a) (1994), provided for the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base period of 3 years with two 1-year options. The RFP informed offerors that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, cost and other factors considered. The RFP listed seven technical evaluation criteria and their weighting, which totaled 100 points, and stated that the "cost evaluation would be given a total of 20 points." The RFP requested the submission of technical and cost proposals, and provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals. Offerors were informed that technical proposals should be organized by the RFP's evaluation criteria, and should address how the offeror intends to carry out the RFP's statement of work (SOW). In this regard, the RFP stated that technical proposals were to "set forth in detail [the offeror's] approach and schedule, technical resources, technical experience and background, unique or specialized skills, and physical facilities." With regard to the cost proposals, the RFP required that each offeror provide a budget listing amounts for the following: total salaries; overhead; consultants; travel; per diem; [general and administrative]; subcontractors; fixed fee; and total price. Offerors were also to include "[s]upporting information in sufficient detail to allow a complete analysis [of] each of the costs proposed." The agency received three proposals, including MEA's and DATEX's, by the RFP's August 2, 1995, closing date. The agency's technical evaluation committee (TEC) evaluated the offerors' technical proposals. DATEX's initial proposal received 82.7 out of 100 total technical points, at a proposed cost of $9,496,694. MEA's proposal received 80.7 technical points, at a proposed cost of $6,313,287. The cost proposals were evaluated by the cognizant contracting specialist. In performing his evaluation, the contracting specialist considered the offerors' proposed costs relative to their technical approaches, and compared the offerors' proposed costs to the estimates set forth in the agency's illustrative budget.