Research Triangle Institute, B-278254, January 12, 1998

B-278254 Jan 12, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher-cost offer in a best value procurement in which technical merit was stated to be more important than cost was not improper where the agency reasonably concluded that the higher-rated offer. Was not worth the additional cost. The contractor is to support the efforts of Polish local governments to be more effective. This is a follow-on contract to USAID's technical assistance pilot LGP program in Poland. RTI is a member of the incumbent consortium of firms currently performing the pilot program. Was most advantageous to the government. It also stated 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: Research Triangle Institute File: B-278254 Date: January 12, 1998 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Research Triangle Institute (RTI) protests the award of a contract to Chemonics International, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 97-001, issued by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). RTI contends that, in deciding to award the contract to Chemonics, the contracting officer disregarded the proposal evaluation record and ignored the RFP's stated evaluation criteria which emphasized technical superiority over cost. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP solicited proposals to provide technical assistance for the USAID Local Government Partnership (LGP) Program in Poland. The contractor is to support the efforts of Polish local governments to be more effective, responsive, and accountable on a sustainable basis. This is a follow-on contract to USAID's technical assistance pilot LGP program in Poland; RTI is a member of the incumbent consortium of firms currently performing the pilot program. The RFP contemplated award of a 40-month, level-of-effort contract, and stated that the contractor would be paid on a cost-plus-award-fee basis. The RFP stated that technical proposals would be scored by a technical evaluation committee (TEC) using the following technical evaluation criteria and maximum evaluation points: 1. Relevance of offeror's past performance in implementing similar projects and quality of performance under those contracts (20 points); 2. Degree to which the offeror's proposal reflects a clear understanding of the project's concepts and overall strategic objective, including the role and importance of performance monitoring (20 points); 3. Offeror's demonstration of full understanding of the technical issues involved in this procurement (15 points); 4. Viability of offeror's proposal for institutionalizing the LGP program within Polish institutions and professions for sustainability of results (20 points); 5. Qualifications of proposed personnel (15 points); 6. Offeror's proposal for a timely and effective management approach for implementing this program within the 3.5 year period of the project and the budget range (10 points). The RFP also provided that cost proposals would be scored using the following cost factors and points: (1) Total cost (10 points), (2) Reasonableness of cost (5 points), and (3) Proposal award fee (5 points). The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, was most advantageous to the government, considering the above technical and cost factors. It also stated 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." Five proposals were submitted. The TEC evaluated and scored the technical proposals. The contracting officer determined that the proposals of RTI, Chemonics, and a third offeror were in the competitive range. Discussions were conducted and the technical proposals were rescored. The technical scores and proposed costs of the three competitive range proposals were as follows: Offeror Technical score Proposed cost RTI 82.75 $27,999,936 Chemonics 69 $27,842,929 Third offeror 68.5 $27,996,808 The agency requested three rounds of best and final offers (BAFO). The second and third rounds were necessitated by errors in RTI's cost proposal. After the first BAFOs--and after the TEC had recommended award to RTI--the contracting officer discovered RTI had not complied with a requirement for a 40-month budget; RTI had proposed only 39 months. In the second BAFOs, RTI's proposed cost remained the same; Chemonics reduced its cost by $330,211. Although RTI's second BAFO included the required 40-month budget, the firm made another error in its cost proposal. The contract includes a $3 million grant program and the RFP required the cost of administering that program to be budgeted separately.