Ecology and Environment, Inc., B-277061.2, September 5, 1997

B-277061.2 Sep 05, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's evaluation of proposals was reasonable despite its decision not to rescore best and final offers (BAFO). Agencies are not required to rescore BAFOs. Agency had a reasonable basis for finding that protester's and awardee's proposals were technically equal. Where (1) awardee's experience as a general contractor which had managed technical subcontractors was suited to the work under the solicitation. The protester primarily argues that the evaluation of proposals was improper. The evaluation was to be on a best value basis. The cost proposal also was to be evaluated as to the ability of the offeror to control cost. Eleven proposals were received and six. Were included in the competitive range. View Decision Matter of: Ecology and Environment, Inc. File: B-277061.2 Date: September 5, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) protests the award of a contract to Chemonics International, Inc. under Agency for International Development (AID) request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-95-P-074, for technical services and program management in support of Egypt's Cairo Air Improvement Project (CAIP). The protester primarily argues that the evaluation of proposals was improper. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on April 11, 1996, contemplated the award of a cost-plus- fixed-fee contract for 5 years, with a 2-year option. The evaluation was to be on a best value basis, with consideration being given to technical superiority (greatest weight) and cost. The technical factors consisted of the following: (1) Vehicle Emissions Testing (VET)--200 points; (2) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)--200 points; (3) Lead Smelter--0 points; [1] (4) Air Quality Monitoring--100 points; (5) Public Awareness--150 points; (6) Commodity/New Initiatives--50 points; and (7) CAIP Management--300 points. With regard to cost, the RFP stated that the proposed total estimated cost-plus-fixed-fee would be evaluated for reasonableness, completeness, credibility, and realism; the cost proposal also was to be evaluated as to the ability of the offeror to control cost. Eleven proposals were received and six, including Chemonics's and E&E's, were included in the competitive range. After written discussions, the agency requested and received revised proposals. Following the second evaluation, Chemonics's and E&E's proposals remained in the competitive range. Following further written discussions with the firms, the technical evaluation committee (TEC) requested and received best and final offers (BAFO). During the BAFO evaluation, each TEC member performed an individual evaluation to assess any additional information, changes in strategies, and other revisions, and to determine whether the weaknesses discussed during the second evaluation had been addressed. The TEC, together with the contracting officer, thereafter decided that there were not enough significant changes in the scores to warrant rescoring the BAFOs. The total weighted scores from the second evaluation ultimately were used for the final ranking, which resulted in a determination that all proposals were essentially technically equal. The contracting officer therefore focused on the cost proposals in making the best value determination. Although E&E's evaluated cost was essentially the same as Chemonics's, the contracting officer determined that Chemonics's proposal represented the best value because E&E's proposed fees and ceilings on indirect cost rates were significantly higher than Chemonics's, and E&E's cost management plan showed lower cost savings than Chemonics's. The agency made award to Chemonics on this basis. E&E challenges the evaluation on numerous bases. In considering a protest against an evaluation of proposals, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. ESCO, Inc., 66 Comp.Gen. 404, 410 (1987), 87-1 CPD Para. 450 at 7. We find that the evaluation was proper. We discuss E&E's principal arguments below. FAILURE TO RESCORE BAFOS E&E maintains that AID improperly failed to rescore the BAFOs and that as a result, the evaluation did not encompass E&E's change in the number of performance-based project milestones and three allegedly significant new initiatives in achieving the contract's objectives. There generally is no requirement that an agency formally rescore BAFOs; rather, all that is required is that the agency consider the effect on proposals of any changes contained in the BAFOs. University of Dayton Research Inst., B-245431, Jan. 2, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 6 at 4. AID met this standard.