Global Associates Ltd.

Global Associates Ltd. BNUMBER: B-271693; B-271693.2 DATE: August 2, 1996 TITLE: Global Associates Ltd. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Global Associates Ltd. File: B-271693; B-271693.2 Date:August 2, 1996 Ross W. Dembling, Esq., and Craig A. Holman, Esq., Holland & Knight, for the protester. Robert E. Gregg, Esq., Hazel & Thomas, for Grammarians, Inc., the intervenor. Alan D. Groesbeck, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where a proposal, submitted in response to a solicitation, which was issued as a total small business set-aside and included the required "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause, Federal Acquisition Regulation sec. 52.219-14, is ambiguous as to its compliance with the clause, communications between the agency and an offeror, which resulted in the offeror's submission and the agency's consideration of a five-page document explaining the offeror's approach to complying with the subcontracting limitation, constitute discussions, such that the agency must reopen discussions and allow for the submission of best and final offers. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably determined that the awardee's proposal was compliant with a request for proposal's "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause, Federal Acquisition Regulation sec. 52.219-14, constitutes a challenge to the acceptability of the proposal. 3. Protester was prejudiced where the agency conducted discussions with only the awardee after the submission of best and final offers (BAFO) to allow the awardee to revise its unacceptable proposal to make it compliant with "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause, Federal Acquisition Regulation sec. 52.219-14, because it could have simply rejected the awardee's proposal or allowed the protester the same opportunity to revise its proposal. DECISION Global Associates Ltd. protests the award of a contract to Grammarians, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. WO-96-02, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for writing, editing, and other services in support of the Forest Service's publications program. Global protests that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal, failed to perform a reasonable price/technical trade-off, and conducted improper post-best and final offer (BAFO) discussions with Grammarians. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options. The RFP requested the submission of technical and cost/price proposals, and provided detailed instructions for their preparation. The solicitation stated that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, represented the best value to the government. The RFP stated that the agency was concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features and thus technical merit was more important than price. The solicitation listed the following evaluation criteria in descending order of importance: 1. Corporate experience 2. Past experience on similar projects 3. Project management 4. Personnel qualifications and experience 5. Familiarity with government publishing standards and regulations The RFP also included the standard "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause, as set forth at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 52.219-14. This clause is required for all solicitations issued as small business set-asides, FAR sec. 19.508(e), and provides in relevant part as follows: "(b) By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that in performance of the contract in the case of a contract for-- (1) Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern." The agency received eight proposals by the RFP's closing date of January 25, 1996. The proposals were evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Team (TET), and three proposals, including those submitted by Grammarians and Global, were included in the competitive range. Written discussions were conducted, and BAFOs were requested on February 27 and received on March 5. The contracting officer states that on February 27, she requested reports from Dun & Bradstreet on each of the three offerors whose proposals had been included in the competitive range.