DevTech Systems, Inc., B-284879; B-284879.2, June 16, 2000

DevTech Systems, Inc., B-284879; B-284879.2, June 16, 2000 TITLE: DevTech Systems, Inc., B-284879; B-284879.2, June 16, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284879; B-284879.2 DATE: June 16, 2000 ********************************************************************** DevTech Systems, Inc., B-284879; B-284879.2, June 16, 2000 Decision Matter of: DevTech Systems, Inc. File: B-284879; B-284879.2 Date: June 16, 2000 Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Dennis E. Pryba, II, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for the protester. Thomas K. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, for Creative Associates International, Inc., the intervenor. John K. Scales, Esq., Agency for International Development, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's discussions with the protester were meaningful and not misleading where the agency advised the protester of areas of agency concern with the protester's proposal, and the agency's evaluated concerns were reasonable and not the product of an agency miscalculation as asserted by the protester. 2. Protest that the agency improperly awarded a contract to the awardee on the basis of its lower-priced, lower technically rated proposal where the solicitation emphasized that technical merit was more important than price is denied where the agency reasonably determined that, despite the protester's proposal's 6 percent higher technical score, the proposals were equal with regard to technical merit. DECISION DevTech Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Creative Associates International, Inc. (CAI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. M/OP-99-912, issued by the Agency for International Development (AID), for professional and technical services to support the agency in a number of education-related activities. DevTech contends that the agency failed to evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation, conducted misleading discussions, and acted unreasonably in selecting CAI's proposal for award. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued to acquire technical and professional services in support of the agency's stated objective for "Improved and Expanded Basic Education, especially for Girls, Women and Other Underserved Populations." RFP at 2. The contractor will collaborate with AID and host national entities to "carry out restorative and additive educational work in crisis countries." RFP at 12. Such activities may include the "conduct [of] rapid policy appraisals, the expeditious development of plans to meet basic education requirements, the effective involvement of parents and other local citizens in reviving and revitalizing community schools, the design and testing of educational materials that promote peaceful negotiation and the amelioration of differences, and to provide quality education for refugee or other transient, temporary situations." Id. In addition to supporting educational activities at nearly all levels, the contractor will also monitor and evaluate the results of the activities performed, and disseminate to the education research and development community "lessons learned" that "have direct implications for improved policy, basic education and work in crisis and non-presence countries." RFP at 17. The RFP provided for the award of an indefinite-quantity contract for a base period of three years with two 1-year options, using both time-and-materials and fixed-price arrangements. [1] Id. at 2. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the agency based upon seven evaluation criteria that were listed in descending order of importance. [2] RFP at 113-14. The RFP added that in determining which proposal represented the best value to the government, technical merit would be considered "significantly more important than cost or price." RFP at 114. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals. The solicitation requested that offerors submit separate price/business and technical proposals. With regard to the price/business proposals, the solicitation included 21 contract line items number (CLIN) to be completed by each offeror, 17 of which identified a functional labor category. RFP at 3-5. Each functional labor category CLIN was broken down into three sub-CLINs identifying that category by level (senior, mid, and junior).