Barents Group, L.L.C., B-276082; B-276082.2, May 9, 1997

Barents Group, L.L.C., B-276082; B-276082.2, May 9, 1997 BNUMBER: B-276082; B-276082.2 DATE: May 9, 1997 TITLE: Barents Group, L.L.C., B-276082; B-276082.2, May 9, 1997 ********************************************************************** 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:Barents Group, L.L.C. File: B-276082; B-276082.2 Date:May 9, 1997 Brian A. Darst, Esq.; William A. Roberts III, Esq.; Lee P. Curtis, Esq.; Jerone C. Cecelic, Esq.; and Andrew D. Irwin, Esq., Howrey & Simon, for the protester. Robert A. Mangrum, Esq.; and Jason I. Hewitt, Esq., Winston & Strawn for Chemonics International, Inc.; Paul Shnitzer, Esq., and Mark D. Taylor, Esq., for Booz-Allen & Hamilton; Dean M. Dilley, Esq., and Mary Beth Bosco, Esq., Patton Boggs, for Abt Associates, Inc., intervenors. Rosemary T. Rakas, Esq., and William D. Jones, Agency for International Development, for the agency. John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Under solicitation that calls for proposals to provide resumes for various labor categories, including investment bankers, and to "provide adequate evidence of appropriate academic credentials and depth of experience and professional qualifications as specified in [the] RFP for the designated areas of technical specialty," the evaluation was flawed since the resumes submitted by one awardee for the investment banker category do not appear to meet a reasonable definition of investment banker. 2. Under solicitation that calls for fixed daily salaries and fixed multipliers for personnel, award is flawed because awardee's proposal included conditions on its multipliers. Since awardee's proposal included conditions on its multipliers, no award could be made based on that proposal without opening discussions in order to remove those conditions or amending the solicitation to allow other offerors to propose on the same terms. DECISION Barents Group, L.L.C. protests the award of contracts to Chemonics International, Inc., Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Abt Associates, Inc., Carana Corporation, and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu under request for proposals (RFP) No. OP/B/PCE-96-001 issued by the Agency for International Development (AID) for technical assistance to support AID's Economic Growth Center. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND This procurement is part of AID's Support for Economic Growth and Institutional Reform Project, a primary purpose of which is to provide AID with technical expertise in economic and institutional analysis and private sector development issues. While the RFP provides for the award of contracts in two functional areas, only contract line item 0001, which concerns privatization issues, is at issue in this protest. Under contracts awarded pursuant to line item 0001, contractors are to work with AID staff to facilitate the transfer of assets from state ownership and management to private ownership and management. Work under those contracts is to be performed pursuant to task orders issued by the agency and negotiated with the contractors. The RFP contemplated award of four to six indefinite quantity contracts under line item 0001, each for a 3-year base period and 2 option years, with one contract set aside for award under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. The RFP indicated that contracts would be awarded to responsible offerors submitting acceptable, reasonably priced proposals with technical and cost scores that offered the greatest value to the government and that awards would be made based on initial proposals. The RFP explained that proposals were to be assigned technical scores and cost scores, which were to be reduced to an overall proposal score, with technical weighted 60 percent and cost 40 percent. The technical evaluation was to include consideration of the following criteria, with each criterion assigned 25 points: 1. Personnel qualifications and experience 2. Quality and responsiveness 3. Demonstrated corporate experience 4. Past performance The RFP also provided that after the evaluation of offers, every qualified offeror would make an oral presentation and participate in a question and answer session with the evaluation committee. The RFP called for offerors to propose a separate "maximum fixed daily salary" for the base period and each of the option periods for each of seven labor categories. The RFP stated that actual salaries for individuals proposed under each task order are to be negotiated but cannot exceed the maximum salaries proposed in response to the RFP.