Chemonics International, Inc., B-282555, July 23, 1999

B-282555 Jul 23, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BACKGROUND The objective of the protested procurement is to increase access to sustainable water and wastewater services for the 7.5 million people in the Egyptian governorates of Fayoum. Performance of the contract is intended to: increase revenues to recover operation and management costs. The RFP stated: USAID will not dictate in the RFP the number and composition of specialists to be fielded. Will be interested in soliciting creative proposals for carrying out the scope of work. " the RFP required that the person proposed to serve as "Chief of Party" /2/ must have "extensive overseas management experience. With 5 years in a supervisory capacity . . . is required.". [Bachelor of Science] level degrees are required.". View Decision Matter of: Chemonics International, Inc. File: B-282555 Date: July 23, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Chemonics International, Inc. protests the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) award of a contract to Planning and Development Collaborative International, Inc. (PADCO) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-98-P-011 to assist recently formed water/wastewater utilities in providing water and wastewater services in Egypt. Chemonics asserts that the agency conducted discussions in a manner which unreasonably favored PADCO, applied unstated evaluation criteria, and awarded the contract on the basis of PADCO's proposal which failed to comply with material RFP requirements. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The objective of the protested procurement is to increase access to sustainable water and wastewater services for the 7.5 million people in the Egyptian governorates of Fayoum, Beni Suef and Minia, through technical assistance aimed at strengthening the institutional capabilities of the recently-formed water/wastewater organizations in those areas. Specifically, performance of the contract is intended to: increase revenues to recover operation and management costs; enhance autonomy in managing utility assets; and expand capacity to deliver services. RFP at 2, 11. The RFP, issued on March 15, 1998, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a 60-month period. As amended, the RFP established a May 17 closing date for the submission of initial proposals. The solicitation identified three phases of contract performance, listed specific tasks to be performed, and requested that each offeror describe its proposed technical approach. /1/ With regard to personnel, the RFP stated: USAID will not dictate in the RFP the number and composition of specialists to be fielded, but will be interested in soliciting creative proposals for carrying out the scope of work, including proposals regarding the appropriate mix of specialists, schedule for deploying different members of the team, and strategy for establishing field offices. RFP at 38. Although the RFP did not establish required personnel levels, the RFP did establish certain minimum requirements applicable to various categories of personnel that the agency anticipated offerors would propose. Under the heading "Key Expatriate Positions," the RFP required that the person proposed to serve as "Chief of Party" /2/ must have "extensive overseas management experience," more specifically stating that "10 years experience in utility management and/or operations, with 5 years in a supervisory capacity . . . is required." Id. Regarding other key expatriate personnel proposed, the RFP provided, among other things, that "[a] minimum of BSc. [Bachelor of Science] level degrees are required." Id. Section M of the RFP provided that evaluation of an offeror's "Chief of Party" and "Other Expatriate Staff" would account for 30 of a possible 100 technical points. /3/ RFP at 133-34. Offerors were advised that "technical proposal merits are considered significantly more important than cost," but cost was not assigned a numerical weighting. RFP at 132. Four proposals, including those of Chemonics and PADCO, were submitted by the May 17, 1998, closing date. These proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation committee (TEC) which assigned the following scores: Offeror Technical Score Chemonics [deleted] PADCO [deleted] Offeror A [deleted] Offeror B [deleted] TEC Memorandum, July 8, 1998, at 1. Chemonics' initial proposed cost was [deleted]; PADCO's initial proposal proposed cost was [deleted]. The agency's independent cost estimate was approximately [deleted]. Based on the evaluation of initial proposals, the contracting officer determined that Chemonics' and PADCO's proposals were the most highly rated and established a competitive range consisting of only those two proposals.