Professional Services Group, Inc.

B-274289.2 Dec 19, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the protester where during discussion the agency did not reasonably inform the protester that its proposed staffing was considered inadequate. The technical merit factors were as follows: [2] Merit Factor 1 - Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of the required services/past performance. The proposals were evaluated by a proposal evaluation board (PEB). Wheelabrator's proposal with a score of [DELETED] points was the highest rated. PSG's proposal with a score of [DELETED] points was the third highest rated. In which each offeror was requested to clarify and provide more detail regarding their price proposals. View Decision Matter of: Professional Services Group, Inc. File: B-274289.2 Date: December 19, 1996 * Redacted Decision Agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the protester where during discussion the agency did not reasonably inform the protester that its proposed staffing was considered inadequate. Attorneys DECISION Professional Services Group, Inc. (PSG) protests the award of a contract to Wheelabrator EOS, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 96-11, issued by the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), for operation and maintenance of the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant. [1] PSG protests that it did not receive meaningful discussions. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued on March 14, 1996, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price, contract, for a base period with 4 option years. The evaluation scheme in the RFP provided for a best value award with technical/management worth more than cost/price. The technical merit factors were as follows: [2] Merit Factor 1 - Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of the required services/past performance. Merit Factor 2 - Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required. Merit Factor 3 - Technical proposal quality and responsiveness to the scope of work. Merit Factor 4 - Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time. Merit Factor 5 - Financial stability and professional reputation of the firm. In addition to these factors, the RFP listed several subfactors under each merit factor. Under Merit Factor 3, the RFP listed "Adequacy of the Staffing Plan" as the most important subfactor. USIBWC received [DELETED] proposals by the closing date for the receipt of initial proposals on April 29. Both Wheelabrator and PSG submitted proposals. The proposals were evaluated by a proposal evaluation board (PEB), which determined all proposals to be technically acceptable and within the competitive range. Wheelabrator's proposal with a score of [DELETED] points was the highest rated, and PSG's proposal with a score of [DELETED] points was the third highest rated. In letters dated June 25, USIBWC initiated discussions, in which each offeror was requested to clarify and provide more detail regarding their price proposals, and to provide a detailed staffing plan, including a schedule indicating all personnel, including operations and maintenance personnel, and the shifts during the day which they work. [3] Offerors were requested to submit revised proposals by July 12. After the revised proposals were reviewed, telephonic discussions were conducted with all offerors regarding their price proposals. USIBWC then announced that "discussions" were "concluded" and that best and final offers (BAFO) were to be submitted by August 1. Wheelabrator's BAFO failed to include cost details deemed essential by the agency, which led the agency to conduct a third round of discussions with all offerors to allow Wheelabrator to address the problem; none of the other offerors received discussion questions during this round. The revised BAFOs were received on August 5. Wheelabrator's revised BAFO priced at [DELETED] received the same [DELETED] score and PSG's revised BAFO priced at [DELETED] received a [DELETED] score. USIBWC then prepared a "source selection determination" which set forth the technical scores and prices of the five proposals. Wheelabrator had the highest technical rating and PSG the third highest rating. The determination reported "significant differences in the technical and management proposals," particularly in the area of staffing. The determination noted that Wheelabrator proposed a staff of [DELETED], whereas PSG proposed a staff of [DELETED], and concluded that in the agency's "best business judgment, the plant cannot be operated effectively with only [DELETED]." For this reason, and those involving the other offerors, USIBWC determined Wheelabrator's proposal to represent the best value and awarded the contract to it on August 13.