RONCO Consulting Corporation, B-280113, August 11, 1998

B-280113 Aug 11, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Were reasonably determined to be essentially equal technically. Lower scored proposal is unobjectionable notwithstanding the solicitation's emphasis on technical merit over cost. Processing and trade in key economic sub-sectors. /1/ RONCO alleges that the contracting officer improperly determined that the proposals of RONCO and Chemonics were technically equivalent and made award to Chemonics primarily on the basis of its low cost. RONCO also contends that the agency was biased in making its award determination. The RFP advised that "[t]echnical competence is significantly more important than cost. Estimated cost is an important factor and its importance as an evaluation factor will increase as the degree of equality of technical competence between proposals increases.". View Decision Matter of: RONCO Consulting Corporation File: B-280113 Date: August 11, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION RONCO Consulting Corporation protests the award of a contract to Chemonics International, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 624-97-005, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for technical services to assist the USAID/Mali Mission in increasing production, processing and trade in key economic sub-sectors. /1/ RONCO alleges that the contracting officer improperly determined that the proposals of RONCO and Chemonics were technically equivalent and made award to Chemonics primarily on the basis of its low cost. RONCO also contends that the agency was biased in making its award determination. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on June 24, 1997, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee performance-based contract for short- and long-term technical assistance support to and provision of non-academic in-country and third-country workshops, conferences, training, and observation tours; management of sub-contracts; administration of necessary commodity procurement and/or logistics; and all necessary administrative, financial and logistic support necessary to achievement of performance measures in the contract for a 4.5-year period. Section M of the RFP provided that the government would evaluate proposals by assigning numerical ratings to each proposal under the following four factors worth a total of 1,000 points: (1) program strategy (300 points); (2) management plan (300 points); (3) work plan and performance plan (250 points); and (4) resources, experience and capability (150 points). The RFP stated that cost would not be point-scored, but would be an important factor in the evaluation. In particular, the RFP advised that "[t]echnical competence is significantly more important than cost, however, estimated cost is an important factor and its importance as an evaluation factor will increase as the degree of equality of technical competence between proposals increases." RFP Sec. M.3. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. RFP Sec. M.4(b). Five offerors, including RONCO and Chemonics, submitted proposals by the August 29 closing date. A four-member technical evaluation committee (TEC) rated the initial proposals by assigning numerical scores under each evaluation factor in accordance with section M of the RFP. Narrative discussions of each offeror's strengths and weaknesses in each of the four evaluation factors were prepared. RONCO's initial technical proposal received 3,420 points and was ranked first of the five proposals. /2/ Chemonics initial technical proposal received 3,150 points and was ranked second. Three proposals, including RONCO's and Chemonics's, were included in the competitive range. USAID conducted written discussions and conference calls with each of these three offerors. Responses to discussions were due by November 25. The responses were reviewed by the agency evaluators and the TEC submitted a 33-page memorandum which reviewed in detail the technical proposals for the three offerors in the competitive range and provided explanatory details concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the competing proposals. Based on the evaluation memorandum and conversations with the TEC, the contracting officer made a determination that the three competitive range offerors were each technically competent to perform the required work. By letter dated March 6, USAID requested final offers by March 20. Because offerors had previously been given the opportunity to revise their technical proposals and because all offerors were determined technically competent to perform the contract, the March 6 letters focused on the offerors' cost proposals. The competitive range offerors submitted final proposals which were reviewed by the TEC.