The Futures Group International--Reconsideration, B-270397.3,

B-270397.3 Jun 11, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where it essentially repeats arguments made during the consideration of the original protest and expresses disagreement with the decision. Technical Evaluation TFGI protested that AID awarded the contract to an offeror that proposed a Chief of Party (COP) candidate who did not have long-term COP experience leading multisectoral health programs in developing countries. Which TFGI maintained was a prerequisite for award. The protester argued that this prerequisite was evidenced by AID's advice to TFGI that the offeror had to propose a candidate with long-term COP experience in a multisectoral technical assistance effort in a developing country. The protester noted that AID rejected TFGI's first candidate because she did not have COP experience and rejected TFGI's second candidate because he lacked long-term experience. View Decision Matter of: The Futures Group International--Reconsideration File: B-270397.3 Date: June 11, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Futures Group International (TFGI) asks that we reconsider our decision in The Futures Group Int'l, B-270397.2, May 16, 1996, 97-1 CPD Para., in which we denied the firm's protest of the technical and cost evaluations, and the resultant contract award to Management Sciences for Health (MSH), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 521-95-005, issued by the Agency for International Development (AID). The solicitation sought offers for a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to implement the Health Systems (HS) 2004 Project in Haiti. [1] We deny the reconsideration request. Technical Evaluation TFGI protested that AID awarded the contract to an offeror that proposed a Chief of Party (COP) candidate who did not have long-term COP experience leading multisectoral health programs in developing countries, which TFGI maintained was a prerequisite for award. The protester argued that this prerequisite was evidenced by AID's advice to TFGI that the offeror had to propose a candidate with long-term COP experience in a multisectoral technical assistance effort in a developing country. The protester noted that AID rejected TFGI's first candidate because she did not have COP experience and rejected TFGI's second candidate because he lacked long-term experience. TFGI further noted that its third candidate met all qualifications but the offer nevertheless was downgraded in the final evaluation with respect to the COP-related subcriteria. In contrast, TFGI complained, not only did AID not require that MSH's candidate be replaced because he did not have COP experience, but MSH's score for the COP-related subcriteria increased throughout the evaluation. TFGI concluded that the competition therefore was not conducted on an equal basis. AID responded that the RFP did not expressly require COP experience, and that the agency did not require COP experience in the course of negotiations. We agreed with AID. In requesting reconsideration, TFGI takes issue with our assessment of the negotiation and evaluation process. The firm argues that we were factually and legally wrong in concluding that the offerors were treated fairly with respect to the COP-related negotiations; TFGI complains that the reasons AID rejected TFGI's first two COP candidates similarly should have led to the rejection of MSH's candidate. In resolving the protest, we examined the RFP requirements, evaluation records, and records of and arguments regarding the negotiations with the two offerors. We concluded that neither the RFP, nor AID during negotiations, established long-term COP experience in a multisectoral health effort in a developing country as a prerequisite for award so that either MSH's offer could not be accepted because of its candidate's lack of experience in that regard or TFGI was misled into responding to a more restrictive requirement than was applied to MSH. In the reconsideration request TFGI in essence repeats arguments it made previously and expresses disagreement with our decision. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.14(a) (1996). The repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest and statements of disagreement with our decision do not meet this standard. R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Request for Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para.