Global Associates, Ltd.

B-275534 Mar 03, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that the contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's and awardee's proposals under certain of the technical evaluation criteria is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable. Was not otherwise inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. The contractor will be required to furnish. Requested that proposals describe "how the project is to be organized. Offerors were also required to complete a detailed price schedule based upon the estimated quantities of work set forth in the RFP. The RFP stated that since the agency was more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features. Technical merit was more important than price. View Decision Matter of: Global Associates, Ltd. File: B-275534 Date: March 3, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Global Associates, Ltd. protests the award of a contract to Enviro-Management & Research, Inc., (EMR) 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 argues that the agency improperly evaluated the proposals and failed to perform a reasonable or proper price/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. [1] 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 contractor will be required to furnish, among other things, editing, manuscript preparation, proofreading, writing, and drawing services. The RFP requested the submission of technical and cost/price proposals, and provided detailed instructions for their preparation. Among other things, the RFP provided an estimate of the services to be ordered for a 12-month period, and requested that proposals describe "how the project is to be organized, staffed and managed." Offerors were also required to complete a detailed price schedule based upon the estimated quantities of work set forth in the RFP. The solicitation stated that 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 since the agency was more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features, technical merit was more important than price. The solicitation listed the following technical 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 agency received eight proposals by the RFP's closing date of January 25, 1996. The proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation team (TET), and the proposals of Global, EMR, and Grammarians, Inc., were included in the competitive range. Written discussions were conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) were received and evaluated. The agency determined that Grammarians's proposal represented the best value to the agency and made award to that firm. Global, the incumbent contractor, filed protests with our Office on April 8 and May 20, 1996, contending, among other things, that the agency had engaged in improper post-BAFO discussions with Grammarians. In Global Associates, Ltd., B-271693; B-271693.2, August 2, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 100, we sustained Global's protests because the record demonstrated that the agency had held improper post-BAFO discussions with only Grammarians; we recommended that the agency reopen discussions and request new BAFOs. In response to our recommendation, the agency reopened discussions on September 9, addressed certain questions to the offerors, disclosed the total prices proposed by each offeror in their previously submitted BAFOs, and requested that Global, EMR, and Grammarians submit BAFOs by September 13. Each of the three offerors submitted BAFOs by the September 13 due date. On October 7, the agency notified the three offerors that the September 9 request for BAFOs had "included incorrect prices for the offerors in the competitive range" and advised the offerors of the correct prices; this notice also posed written discussion questions to each of the offerors and requested that BAFOs be submitted by October 11. Each of the three offerors again submitted BAFOs. Global's BAFO was rated at 88 out of 120 points at an evaluated price of $791,822, EMR's BAFO was rated at 113 points at an evaluated price of $1,011,833, and Grammarians's BAFO was rated at 89 points at an evaluated price of $1,018,979.