The Futures Group International, B-281274.2, March 3, 1999

B-281274.2 Mar 03, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cost realism analysis that accepted as realistic the awardee's proposed indirect rates that were significantly below its most recent indirect rate cost submission is not reasonably supported. 2. Past performance evaluation is reasonable. Where the technical evaluators reasonably explained during the course of the protest why the awardee's past performance was rated as outstanding. Futures contends that the evaluation of Deloitte's proposal was unreasonable. It is designed to build commercial markets for family planning and other health products and services in low and middle-income populations in developing countries through social marketing and partnerships with the private and commercial sectors. View Decision Matter of: The Futures Group International File: B-281274.2 Date: March 3, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Futures Group International protests the award of a contract to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu under request for proposals (RFP) No. M~OP-98-918, issued by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), to implement a project intended to increase access to family planning and other reproductive health products and services obtained through the commercial and private sectors in developing countries. Futures contends that the evaluation of Deloitte's proposal was unreasonable. We sustain the protest. The RFP implements USAID's latest strategy for encouraging family planning services in developing countries. It is designed to build commercial markets for family planning and other health products and services in low and middle-income populations in developing countries through social marketing and partnerships with the private and commercial sectors. Under the RFP, USAID also seeks to expand the funding possibilities for market building activities through exploring and employing a broad range of public, private and commercial financing mechanisms through the SUMMA Foundation. /1/ RFP Secs. C.1, C.2. The RFP contemplates fulfilling these requirements under a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a 5-year period. RFP Secs. B.2, B.4. The RFP contemplated a best-value award considering technical, past performance, and cost realism. The technical evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were technical approach, key personnel, and management plan. RFP Sec. M.1(a). The past performance factor was said to be equal in importance to all technical factors combined. RFP Sec. M.4(a). The RFP also stated that the combination of all evaluation factors other than cost were significantly more important than cost. RFP Sec. M.2(d). The RFP provided for the evaluation of cost on the basis of realism, and contemplated that proposed costs may be adjusted based on the results of the cost realism evaluation, resulting in the adjusted cost being used in the evaluation of cost. RFP Sec. M.3. Futures and Deloitte submitted proposals by the closing date of July 15, 1998. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the proposals, and assigned Futures' proposal a rating of outstanding and Deloitte's proposal a rating of better. Agency Exhibit No. 3, Technical Evaluation Memorandum at 5. USAID also states that it performed a cost evaluation of the proposals, which analyzed and compared the individual cost elements of the proposals. USAID Report, Nov. 12, 1998, at 17-19. The agency then conducted discussions with the offerors by letter dated August 11, and received best and final offers (BAFO) by September 8. The final evaluation rated both Futures' and Deloitte's proposals as outstanding under all of the technical and past performance factors, although Futures' proposal was considered slightly superior overall. Agency Exhibit No. 2, Negotiation Memorandum at 7; see Agency Exhibit No. 8, Supplemental Technical Evaluation, Sept. 11, 1998, at 1, attachment. Deloitte's proposed BAFO cost was $87,904,406 and Futures' proposed BAFO cost was $94,290,894. USAID determined that the proposed costs were reasonable and realistic and made no probable cost adjustments. Agency Exhibit No. 2, Negotiation Memorandum at 7, 16; Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 29, 38, 70-71. /2/ USAID determined that Deloitte's proposal represented the best value because it received the same outstanding rating as Futures' proposal with a significantly lower cost. Agency Exhibit No. 2, Negotiation Memorandum at 7. Award was made to Deloitte on September 28. This protest followed.