JW Associates Inc., B-275209.3, July 22, 1997

B-275209.3 Jul 22, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is reasonable where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the evaluation criteria established in the solicitation. We sustained JW's protest because we concluded that the Forest Service's technical evaluation and award decision were not adequately supported. " and 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 contracting officer concluded that NRMC's proposal was most advantageous to the government. Alleging that the Forest Service's evaluation of proposals was inconsistent with the terms established in the RFP. We also pointed out that the record suggests that the source selection decision was based primarily on price. View Decision Matter of: JW Associates Inc. File: B-275209.3 Date: July 22, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION JW Associates Inc. protests the award decision of the Forest Service under request for proposals (RFP) No. RM-96-37 following the Forest Service's reevaluation of proposals under that solicitation. JW had earlier protested the Forest Service's award of a contract to Natural Resources Management Corporation (NRMC) under this RFP. In JW Assocs. Inc., B-275209, Jan. 30, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 57, we sustained JW's protest because we concluded that the Forest Service's technical evaluation and award decision were not adequately supported, and we recommended that the Forest Service reevaluate the proposals, conducting discussions and requesting best and final offers, if necessary. The Forest Service reevaluated and affirmed its original determination that NRMC's offer represented the best value to the government. JW now challenges various aspects of the Forest Service's reevaluation and the subsequent award decision. We deny the protest. The RFP sought offers for services to complete an environmental impact statement for the Cold Springs Analysis Area on the Medicine Bow National Forest in Wyoming. The RFP provided detailed instructions in section L establishing the format for proposals and describing the type of information that should be provided under each criterion, and advised offerors to include their most favorable terms in their initial proposals because of the possibility that award could be made without further negotiations. 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," and 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." Nine firms, including JW and NRMC, submitted proposals. A three-member evaluation board reviewed and scored the proposals. 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 most advantageous to the government, and awarded the contract to that firm. After receiving a written debriefing, JW filed a protest in our Office, alleging 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. Although the agency initially stayed the performance of the contract pending resolution of the protest, as required under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3553 (1994), the head of the contracting activity later approved a request by the forest supervisor to override the stay and proceed with performance. We sustained JW's protest, based on our conclusion that the Forest Service had failed to support its technical evaluation in any meaningful way. We also pointed out that the record suggests that the source selection decision was based primarily on price, in spite of the fact that this factor was the least important one under the evaluation scheme established by the RFP. In response to our recommendations, the Forest Service reconvened its three-member evaluation board and reevaluated the proposals. Each board member independently evaluated each technical proposal, using a form on which narrative comments and numerical scores were recorded. Using a 100-point scale, the evaluators could assign a maximum of 26 points for each of the first three evaluation factors and a maximum of 11 points for each of the remaining two factors.