Resource Management International, Inc., B-278108, December

B-278108 Dec 22, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lower technically rated proposal where the RFP emphasized that technical factors were significantly more important than cost is denied where the contracting officer reasonably determined that the protester's and the awardee's proposals were essentially technically equal and that the slight technical advantage represented by the protester's proposal did not merit the expenditure of roughly $[deleted] in additional funds that it would cost to have the protester perform the work. The contractor will provide technical and training assistance to: (1) several government agencies involved in energy planning. The RFP also advised that "[t]he formula set forth above will be used by the Contracting Officer as a guide in determining which proposals will be most advantageous to the Government.". View Decision Matter of: Resource Management International, Inc. File: B-278108 Date: December 22, 1997 *REDACTION DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Resource Management International, Inc. (RMI) protests the United States Agency for International Development's (USAID) award of a contract for providing technical assistance to the Government of the Philippines to Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. (HBS) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 492-97-323. The protester contends that, in deciding to award the contract to HBS on the basis of its lower priced proposal, the contracting officer placed undue emphasis on cost and ignored the RFP's stated evaluation criteria, which emphasized technical superiority and quality of proposed personnel. We deny the protest. Issued on March 19, 1997, the RFP solicited proposals for providing technical assistance to the Government of the Philippines concerning mitigation of greenhouse gases. Among other things, the contractor will provide technical and training assistance to: (1) several government agencies involved in energy planning, policy development, regulation and program implementation; (2) private utilities involved in developing cleaner fuel generation facilities or improving the efficiency of existing generation, transmission and distribution systems; and (3) industrial and commercial sectors related to using energy more efficiently. The RFP contemplated award of a 40-month, level-of-effort contract, and stated that the contractor would be paid on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government after consideration of both technical factors and cost. The RFP stated that technical proposals would be evaluated and point-scored by a technical evaluation committee (TEC) and listed the evaluation criteria and the maximum number of evaluation points available for each as follows: (1) team organizations, qualifications and experience (50 points); (2) past performance and commitment to deliver quality people (35 points); and (3) partnering for best use of resources (5 points). The RFP also stated that cost would be given a point score and provided a formula whereby the lowest-cost proposal would receive the maximum of 10 points, while other proposals would receive fewer points based upon comparison of their proposed costs with the lowest proposed cost. The RFP cautioned that the government would not be obligated to award the contract to either the offeror proposing the lowest cost or the offeror whose proposal garnered the highest evaluation score. The RFP also advised that "[t]he formula set forth above will be used by the Contracting Officer as a guide in determining which proposals will be most advantageous to the Government." Six offers were received by the May 7, 1997, closing date. After evaluation of technical and cost proposals, four offers were determined to be in the competitive range, and written and oral discussions were held with each competitive-range offeror. Offerors were allowed to clarify and/or revise proposals and submitted best and final offers (BAFO). The TEC members individually reviewed technical BAFOs and then met as a group to discuss their findings and to reach a consensus. Based solely upon its evaluation of technical proposals, the TEC recommended that RMI be awarded the contract. The contracting officer assigned each BAFO cost points according to the formula set out in the RFP. The final ranking of offers, based upon technical and cost scores combined, was: Offeror Proposed CostCost Score Technical Score Total Score RMI [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] HBS [deleted] [deleted] [1] [deleted] [deleted] Offeror C [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Offeror D [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] As explained in detail below, the contracting officer performed a best value analysis, reviewing the major cost elements of RMI's and HBS' proposals, and comparing both offerors' proposed costs to the agency's in-house cost estimate.