JW Associates Inc.

B-275209 Jan 30, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency fails to rebut protester's specific allegations that its proposal and that of the awardee were misevaluated. JW alleges that the Forest Service's evaluation of proposals was inconsistent with the terms established in the RFP. The RFP was issued on August 6. Offerors were instructed to submit separate technical and business proposals. The RFP at M4 stated that award would be made to "that offeror (1) whose proposal is technically acceptable and (2) whose technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government.". Which were then averaged. Proposals were ranked on the basis of the average scores. Two proposals were determined to be technically unacceptable. Business proposals were evaluated based on the total price offered for the base and option items. View Decision Matter of: JW Associates Inc. File: B-275209 Date: January 30, 1997 * Redacted Decision Source selection cannot be determined to be reasonable where evaluation record contains no meaningful evaluation of offers, but only conclusory statements which do not permit an understanding of the technical differences between proposals, and agency fails to rebut protester's specific allegations that its proposal and that of the awardee were misevaluated. Attorneys DECISION JW Associates Inc. protests the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to Natural Resources Management Corporation (NRMC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. RM-96-37, issued by the Forest Service for services to complete an environmental impact statement for the Cold Springs Analysis Area on the Medicine Bow National Forest in Wyoming. JW alleges that the Forest Service's evaluation of proposals was inconsistent with the terms established in the RFP, and that the awardee's proposal did not conform with the RFP's requirements. We sustain the protest. The RFP was issued on August 6, 1996, as a total small business set-aside procurement. Offerors were instructed to submit separate technical and business proposals, to allow technical merit and cost to be considered separately. The RFP at M3 listed the following five evaluation criteria in descending order of importance: qualifications of the firm; qualifications of the personnel assigned to the project; past experience of the firm and its employees assigned to the project; geographic location; and price. The RFP characterized the first three criteria as "very important" and the remaining two as "important." The RFP also listed the type of information that should be provided under each criterion. The RFP at M4 stated that award would be made to "that offeror (1) whose proposal is technically acceptable and (2) whose technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government." The RFP further confirmed that it would perform a cost/technical trade-off to determine the most advantageous offer. The Forest Service received proposals from [deleted] firms, including JW and NRMC. An evaluation board, made up of three Forest Service specialists, evaluated the technical proposals. Each member assigned a technical score to each proposal, which were then averaged; proposals were ranked on the basis of the average scores. Two proposals were determined to be technically unacceptable. Of the remaining [deleted] proposals, NRMC's received the [deleted] averaged technical score with [deleted]. JW's proposal received the [deleted] highest score with an average of [deleted] points. Business proposals were evaluated based on the total price offered for the base and option items, as provided in the RFP. NRMC's price was lowest among the proposals that were rated technically acceptable, and JW's was sixth low. The board prepared a "Memorandum for Record" that consisted of a one- paragraph narrative summary of each proposal's evaluation. The contracting officer concluded that NRMC's proposal was the one that was most advantageous to the government, and awarded the contract to this firm on October 7. When JW received notice of the award on October 9, it requested a debriefing. JW received a debriefing letter and a copy of the awardee's technical proposal on October 17. [1] This protest followed on October 22. Because our Office notified the Forest Service of the protest within 5 days of the statutorily-required debriefing, the agency was required, under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3553 (1994), to stay the performance of the contract pending resolution of the protest. Although the agency initially did stay performance, on November 6, the head of the contracting activity approved a request by the forest supervisor to override the stay and proceed with performance. [2] JW argues that the Forest Service's evaluation of proposals and its resulting source selection decision were improper and inconsistent with the evaluation scheme that was established in the RFP.