Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc., B-285777, October 10, 2000

B-285777 Oct 10, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Checchi contends that the agency's evaluation and exclusion of its proposal from the competition and the evaluation of DPK's proposal and its selection for award were unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. The RFP was issued to obtain technical assistance to "support El Salvador's efforts to institutionalize the new Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code . . . in order to establish timely. The solicitation explained that the contractor's efforts are "an integral component" of USAID's overall strategic objective for "More Inclusive and Effective Democratic Processes" in El Salvador. Offerors were to submit technical and business management proposals that would be evaluated under the following criteria: Technical 1. View Decision Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc., B-285777, October 10, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc. protests the award of a contract to DPK Consulting under request for proposals (RFP) No. 519-00-P-006, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), for technical assistance and training to the government of El Salvador. Checchi contends that the agency's evaluation and exclusion of its proposal from the competition and the evaluation of DPK's proposal and its selection for award were unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We sustain the protest. The RFP was issued to obtain technical assistance to "support El Salvador's efforts to institutionalize the new Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code . . . in order to establish timely, effective and fair legal processes based on the rule of law." RFP at 8. The solicitation explained that the contractor's efforts are "an integral component" of USAID's overall strategic objective for "More Inclusive and Effective Democratic Processes" in El Salvador. RFP at 14. The RFP set forth two "intermediate results" for achieving the overall objective, /1/ and described six "illustrative activities" to be performed under the contract in an effort to achieve the intermediate results. /2/ RFP at 15-20. The solicitation provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract, for a base period of 2 years with one 1-year option, to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. RFP at 24, 75. The solicitation stated that the evaluation of proposals would be conducted in three different phases. RFP at 72. For the phase I evaluation, offerors were to submit technical and business management proposals that would be evaluated under the following criteria: Technical 1. Institutional Capability and Past Performance (20 points) 2. Management Plan and Key Personnel (30 points) 3. Technical Concept Paper (50 points) Business Management 1. Cost Reasonableness (20%) 2. Policies and Procedures Reflect Cost Consciouness (15%) 3. Award Fee Structure (30%) 4. Past Performance in Contract Administration (30%) 5. Proposal Content and Preparation (5%) RFP at 78-80. The solicitation explained that the technical evaluation criteria were significantly more important than the business management criteria, and that the contracting officer would determine based upon the evaluation of the phase I proposals which firms would be requested to participate in phase II of the evaluation process. RFP at 76. The RFP stated that phase II of the evaluation would consist of "Discussions and Oral Presentations" with those offerors "determined to have a reasonable chance for award." RFP at 74. The solicitation set forth a general framework for the "oral discussion/presentation" sessions and provided that "oral presentations" would be evaluated under two factors: technical approach (60 points) and management/adminstrative approach (40 points). Id. at 74, 79. The solicitation added that "business discussions" would "involve a negotiation of the items presented in the [previously submitted written] business management proposal[s]," and that "these discussions will take place on the same day as the oral presentations." RFP at 74. The RFP informed offerors that in phase III "[a] final revised proposal will be requested from the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) continue to have a reasonable chance for award." The solicitation specified that "[t]he written proposal will include (1) amendment(s), if any to the original proposal; and (2) first year workplan," as well as a revised business management proposal. Id. The RFP, however, did not list any evaluation factors or criteria for phase III. /3/ The agency received proposals from five offerors, including Checchi and DPK, by the RFP's April 28, 2000 closing date. Agency Report, Tab 3, Negotiation Memorandum, at 7.