DevTech Systems, Inc., B-284860.2, December 20, 2000

B-284860.2 Dec 20, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested two Agency for International Development (AID) contract awards for professional short-term advisory and technical services, contending that AID (1) failed to conduct meaningful discussions with it and (2) unreasonably evaluated the proposal. GAO held that AID failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the protester since it did not inform the protester of certain weaknesses and deficiencies. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that AID (1) reopen and conduct appropriate discussions with all bidders whose proposals are in the competitive range, request revised proposals, and make a new source selection, (2) terminate the awardee's contract and make award to another bidder, if otherwise appropriate, and (3) reimburse the protester for its protest costs. View Decision Matter of: DevTech Systems, Inc. File: B-284860.2 Date: December 20, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION DevTech Systems, Inc. protests the award of contracts to the Academy for Educational Development (AED) and Creative Associates International, Inc., (CAI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. M/OP-99-644, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for professional short-term advisory and technical assistance services. DevTech argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with it, and that the agency's evaluation of its proposal and selection for award of the proposals submitted by AED and CAI were unreasonable. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for the award of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a 3-year period. /1/ The successful contractors under the RFP will be required to provide USAID with short-term advisory and technical assistance services in the areas of education, training, telecommunication/information technologies, and related human development. RFP at 8. The RFP stated that the awards would be made to the offerors submitting the proposals representing the best overall value to the government, with technical merit considered more than twice as important as price. RFP at 74. The solicitation listed the following evaluation criteria: understanding of the scope of work, corporate capability, management structure, and past performance. RFP at 72-73. The RFP informed offerors that the understanding of the scope of work and past performance criteria were equal in importance, and approximately 1 times more important than the equally weighted corporate capability and management structure criteria. RFP at 74. The RFP further stated that "[t]he Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after conducting discussions with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range." RFP at 59. The agency received seven proposals by the RFP's closing date. The proposals were evaluated, and the agency included four proposals, including those submitted by DevTech, AED and CAI, in the competitive range. Agency Report at 4. The agency forwarded written discussion questions to each of the offerors whose proposals had been included in the competitive range, and requested that the offerors submit revised proposals. Agency Report, Tabs H-K, USAID Discussion Letters to Offerors. Revised proposals were received and evaluated, with AED's proposal receiving a score of [DELETED] out of 100 points at an evaluated price of [DELETED] per labor hour, CAI's proposal receiving a score of [DELETED] points at an evaluated price of [DELETED], DevTech's proposal receiving a score of [DELETED] points at an evaluated price of [DELETED], and the proposal of the fourth offeror receiving a score of [DELETED] points at an evaluated price of [DELETED]. /2/ Agency Report, Tab M, Negotiation Memorandum, Feb. 15, 2000, at 4. The agency determined that the proposals submitted by AED and CAI represented the best value to the government, and on February 17, 2000, awarded contracts to those firms. Agency Report at 5. After requesting and receiving a debriefing, DevTech protested the awards, contending that the agency had failed to conduct meaningful discussions with it, that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable, and that the selection for award of the proposals submitted by AED and CAI was unreasonable. DevTech specifically argued that the agency had failed to inform it during discussions of a perceived weakness or deficiency in its past performance that resulted in DevTech's proposal receiving a relatively low rating under the past performance criterion. Protest, Mar. 7, 2000, at 10-11. In response to the protest, the agency informed our Office that its "examination of the record suggests that there may have been shortcomings and also inadequacies in documentation concerning this procurement." Agency Report/Corrective Action Letter, Apr. 5, 2000, at 1.