Development Alternatives, Inc., B-279920, August 6, 1998

B-279920 Aug 06, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where the record. Shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to discuss a weakness found in the protester's initial proposal is denied where there is no evidence that it was considered a significant weakness and its existence did not prevent the protester from having a reasonable chance for award. Related allegation that questions asked during an oral interview constituted discussions is denied where the record shows that the questions were merely requests for additional clarifying detail concerning information already presented in the proposals as revised by written best and final offers. View Decision Matter of: Development Alternatives, Inc. File: B-279920 Date: August 6, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) protests the award of a contract to Barents Group, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 168-98-01, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for technical and advisory services associated with a program to provide lending and business consulting services in support of post-war reconstruction efforts in Bosnia-Herzegovina. DAI contends that USAID's evaluation of technical proposals was unreasonable, that its conduct of discussions was improper, and that its selection of Barents was not rationally justified. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina caused extensive damage to the country's physical infrastructure which, in turn, substantially reduced industrial production and employment levels. In 1995, the United States made a commitment to provide a significant portion of the external financing needed to meet Bosnia-Herzegovina's need for reconstruction inputs and working capital. USAID's Business Development Program has become an integral part of the fulfillment of that commitment. RFP Sec. C.I.A.-B. The business finance component of the program was intended to provide, over a 3-year period, up to $250 million in direct balance of payments support to the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. While the initial phase of the program was characterized as an emerging lending program dedicated to employment generation, the program was also expected to gradually begin lending through banks in early 1998. The primary implementing organization of the credit component of the lending program is the business finance team, staffed by a group of U.S. bankers and trained Bosnian staff; DAI is the incumbent contractor providing these services. The contract contemplated by this solicitation will replace the group now serving in this capacity and will see the project through to completion of USAID management of the activity, which is expected to occur early in the year 2000. RFP Sec. C.I.C.-D. The new contract team will take over the lending function of the program and implement it for approximately the first year of the contract, drawing down most of the available lending funds. During the second year the team will lend the remaining available funds as prudently as possible through banks, but its principal objective will be to carry out a successful transition exercise with Bosnian government and private sector counterparts such that management of the program can be turned over to local institutions and authorities upon conclusion of the contract. RFP Sec. C.I.D., C.II. The solicitation, issued November 25, 1997, anticipated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract to provide these services over 2 years. RFP Sec. B.2, F.3. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, considering technical and cost factors. RFP Sec. M.2(b). The RFP set forth three technical factors and their respective weights, as follows: experience (30 percent); personnel nominated for the field team (35 percent); and technical approach (35 percent). Technical considerations were to slightly outweigh cost considerations in making the final selection. RFP sec. M.1. USAID received proposals from three firms, including DAI and Barents, by the extended closing date of February 13, 1998. Based upon a three-member technical evaluation committee's (TEC) evaluation of these initial proposals, the contracting officer established a competitive range of two proposals, those of DAI and Barents. By letters dated March 9, both offerors were given discussion questions and asked to submit written BAFOs by March 20. In addition, both offerors were told that, in conjunction with the technical BAFO, they would be required to make an oral presentation followed by a brief, fact-finding interview process. The oral presentation/interview was to be treated as an "integral part" of the BAFO and scored as such.