International Resources Group, B-286663, January 31, 2001

B-286663 Jan 31, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Aid for International Development (AID) contract award for technical assistance and training in natural resources management, contending that AID (1) misled it during discussions and (2) improperly held discussions with the awardee. GAO held that (1) AID improperly held discussions with only one competitive range bidder and (2) the protester was prejudiced by AID's failure to conduct discussions with it because its proposal could have been improved through additional communication. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that AID (1) reopen discussions with all competitive range bidders, request another round of revised proposals, and make a new best value determination, (2) terminate the awardee's contract if it is determined that another bidder's proposal offers the best value to the government, and (3) reimburse the protester for its protest costs. View Decision Matter of: International Resources Group File: B-286663 Date: January 31, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION International Resources Group (IRG) protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. (HBS) /1/ under request for proposals No. OEEI1284-00-003, issued by the Agency for International Development (AID) for technical assistance and training to improve the management of natural resources, especially water and energy, in the Central Asian Republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The protester contends that the agency misled it during discussions and engaged in improper discussions with HBS. We sustain the protest. The RFP, which was issued on March 31, 2000, contemplated the award of either a cost-plus-award-fee or cost-sharing contract for a base period of 3 years and an option period of another 2 years. RFP Secs. B.2, L.4. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, with technical aspects of the proposal of significantly greater importance in the determination than cost. RFP Sec. M.1. Technical evaluation factors, listed in order of their significance, were as follows: 1. Qualifications of personnel 2. Managerial Capacity 3. Proposed Performance Benchmarks/Results 4. Technical approach and methodology 5. Past performance The RFP provided that offerors would be free to present their own plans for staffing the contract, but furnished an illustrative staffing pattern as guidance. RFP Sec. F.5. The illustrative staffing pattern consisted of a management cluster and three technical clusters: training/partnerships, energy, and water and environment. Significant positions to be filled within the management cluster were Chief of Party (COP), Deputy COP, and Financial/Contracting Officer. The RFP required that the above three individuals and the leaders of the three technical clusters be resident in the Central Asian Republics. Id. Seven offerors submitted proposals prior to the May 31 closing date. A technical evaluation committee (TEC) reviewed and scored the offerors' technical proposals; upon review of the TEC's findings and proposed costs, the contracting officer determined that the three proposals with the highest technical scores--i.e., those of HBS [deleted], IRG [deleted], and Offeror A [deleted]--should be included in the competitive range. Proposed costs for the three offerors included in the competitive range were as follows: [deleted]. The contracting officer conducted discussions with the three offerors via e-mail and instructed each to submit a final revised proposal. After receipt of HBS's and IRG's final revised proposals (but prior to receipt of Offeror A's), /2/ the contracting officer notified the offerors in the competitive range (again, via e-mail) that two of the tasks called for under the original RFP had been deleted and that the budget ceiling for the 3-year base period had been reduced to $17.9 million. IRG and HBS were given until July 27 to submit revised proposals based on the reduced requirements. Both responded with lower-cost proposals; HBS now proposed costs for the base period as [deleted], while IRG proposed costs of [deleted]. In early August, the TEC reconvened to evaluate the revised proposals. [Deleted] Memorandum of Negotiation at 19; Memo for Post-Award Debriefing of IRG at 2. The evaluators [deleted], noting that the original proposal had been strong and that "the offeror wisely did not tamper significantly with it." Memorandum of Negotiation at 18. The TEC found the HBS proposal to be the superior offer from a technical perspective and in line for award, but since the proposal was "not without its weaknesses and uncertainties," it recommended that the contracting officer conduct further negotiations with HBS. Id. at 20-21. The contracting officer proceeded to engage in a series of communications with HBS.