Interlog, Inc., B-282139, April 27, 1999

B-282139 Apr 27, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where such rating is reasonable and consistent with the evaluation methodology applied to all proposals. Both programs are funded by the Department of State and the Agency for International Development. Are operated by the Department of Justice. The RFP anticipates that the contractor(s) will. The RFP advised that since many of the countries in which this contract will be performed operate in a cash-only economy. Although the RFP stated that these factors were listed in descending order of importance. The RFP also advised that evaluated price (the contract was priced using estimated labor hours and materials costs combined with a program management fee) would be slightly less important than the technical factors. View Decision Matter of: Interlog, Inc. File: B-282139 Date: April 27, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Interlog, Inc. protests the award of contracts to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and DynCorp Aerospace Technology pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. JPCRM-98-0010, issued by the Department of Justice for supplies and services to support the Criminal Division's International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) and the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT). Interlog argues that the agency improperly reserved too many of the available evaluation points for proposals that exceeded the solicitation's stated requirements, thus unfairly prejudicing offerors whose proposals met, but did not exceed, the requirements. In Interlog's view, this approach led to agency assessments that relied upon unstated evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. The ICITAP program within the Department of Justice provides wide-ranging civilian law enforcement support in countries accustomed to operating under totalitarian regimes. RFP amend. 2, Sec. C-3.1. The OPDAT program assists foreign prosecutors and judicial personnel involved in developing and sustaining democratic criminal justice institutions. Id. Sec. C-4.1. Both programs are funded by the Department of State and the Agency for International Development, but are operated by the Department of Justice. Id. Sec. C-5. To further the missions of these programs, the RFP anticipates that the contractor(s) will, among other things, provide training, consultants, warehousing services, assist in establishing police academies and infrastructure, and provide construction management and/or facilities rehabilitation, and conference management. See, e.g., id. Sec. C-3.2. In addition, the RFP advised that since many of the countries in which this contract will be performed operate in a cash-only economy, "[t]he contractor may be required to provide large sum cash advances to persons employed under this contract." Id. secs. C-3.1, C-4.2 The RFP anticipated selection of a contractor or contractors to provide services for the ICITAP and OPDAT programs under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a 1-year base period, followed by four 1-year options. Id. secs. B-1.A, B-3, Tables at B-5 through B-9. The RFP also anticipated selection of the proposal presenting the best value to the government. Id. Sec. L-1.F.(1). To measure the technical merit of proposals, the RFP identified three evaluation factors: technical approach, management plan, and past performance. Id. Sec. M-2.A. Although the RFP stated that these factors were listed in descending order of importance, it cautioned that the technical approach factor would be significantly more important than the other two factors. Id. The RFP also advised that evaluated price (the contract was priced using estimated labor hours and materials costs combined with a program management fee) would be slightly less important than the technical factors. Id. Sec. M-1.2A.(2). After receiving several proposals, performing an initial evaluation, determining a competitive range comprised of Interlog, SAIC, and DynCorp, conducting discussions, and receiving and evaluating final revised proposals, the final scores and evaluated prices were as follows: Offeror Total Price Technical Score DynCorp $80,143,595 92.43 SAIC $82,491,595 98.86 Interlog [deleted] 86.97 Final Award Determination, Feb. 11, 1999, at 3. Noting that Interlog's proposal had the highest proposed pricing and the lowest technical score, the contracting officer selected SAIC and DynCorp for award. This protest followed. Interlog's protest raises but one issue for our review— whether the agency's evaluation scheme reserved such a significant portion of available points for proposals exceeding the stated requirements of the RFP that the evaluation turned on unstated criteria.