Joseph W. Beausoleil, B-285643, August 31, 2000

B-285643 Aug 31, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Beausoleil argues that the agency's evaluation of his and the awardee's applications was unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Included a background section explaining that the overall program goal for AID in Guinea is to achieve "improved economic and social well being of all Guineans in a participatory society.". The solicitation explained that a mission team will be assigned to each objective and will be responsible for implementing activities to achieve the assigned objective. The solicitation stated with regard to the need for a monitoring and evaluation specialist that monitoring and evaluation of the programs are vital to. "ensure that the intended impacts of the activities and the program are being achieved.". View Decision Matter of: Joseph W. Beausoleil File: B-285643 Date: August 31, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Joseph W. Beausoleil protests the award of a personal services contract under solicitation No. 675-00-005, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) for a monitoring and evaluation specialist in Conakry, Guinea. /1/ Mr. Beausoleil argues that the agency's evaluation of his and the awardee's applications was unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued January 11, 2000, included a background section explaining that the overall program goal for AID in Guinea is to achieve "improved economic and social well being of all Guineans in a participatory society." AID has established four program objectives aimed at achieving this goal, such as "increased use of sustainable natural resource management practices." The solicitation explained that a mission team will be assigned to each objective and will be responsible for implementing activities to achieve the assigned objective. The solicitation stated with regard to the need for a monitoring and evaluation specialist that monitoring and evaluation of the programs are vital to, among other things, "ensure that the intended impacts of the activities and the program are being achieved." Solicitation Sec. A. The solicitation provided for the award of a personal services contract for a base period of 2 years with one 1-year option, and included a detailed description of the tasks (both specific and general) to be performed by the successful monitoring and evaluation specialist. For example, the successful applicant will "[h]ave broad responsibility for the design and implementation of the monitoring and evaluation systems," and will "[w]ork with the teams to ensure that the indicators in the Performance Monitoring Plans accurately measure the desired results, that the data are available and collected by the responsible party, and that on-going monitoring takes place." Solicitation Secs. C, D. The solicitation also set forth the qualifications desired of candidates and the information to be included in the applications. The solicitation informed candidates that their applications would be evaluated under the following criteria: education (25 percent); work experience (60 percent); and French language capabilities (15 percent). Solicitation Sec. G. The agency received applications from 18 individuals, and selected 3 applications, including those submitted by the protester and the awardee, for "detailed consideration" by an evaluation committee. Agency Report at 4. The applications were evaluated individually by each committee member and an overall composite score was calculated for each applicant. Agency Report, Tab L, Memorandum of Selection Committee, at 1. The awardee's application received a composite score of 388 out of 500 points, the application of a second individual received 343 points, and the protester's application received 322 points. The agency concluded that the awardee was the strongest of the candidates based upon the applications submitted and selected her for the position. Id. at 5. The protester argues that the agency failed to evaluate his and the awardee's applications reasonably and in accordance with the "work experience" criterion set forth in the solicitation. The work experience evaluation criterion was set forth in the solicitation as follows: --At least 5 years of demonstrated experience in monitoring and evaluating performance and impact of development projects or programs with increasing responsibility in developing countries. --Experience managing donors funded development assistance programs in a francophone country is also desirable. The record of the evaluation consists primarily of the worksheets completed by each of the five members of the selection committee, and the memorandum prepared by the chairman of the committee.