PADCO, Inc.--Costs, B-289096.3, May 3, 2002

B-289096.3 May 03, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm requested that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing a protest challenging a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for contract award for technical support services, contending that they be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing. GAO held that the protest was meritorious because USAID accepted without any analysis, the awardee's unexplained final proposed rates, which were substantially less than those initially proposed, its historical rates, and its proposed ceiling rates. Accordingly, GAO recommended that the protester (1) be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its initial protest because USAID unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to the initial protest, which was clearly meritorious, until almost two months after the initial protest was filed and after submitting a report on the protest; and (2) not be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing supplemental protest grounds, which were clearly severable from the initial protest bases, because USAID did not unduly delay, but took corrective action in response to these protest grounds within two weeks of these grounds being raised, before the agency report on the supplemental protest grounds was due. View Decision PADCO, Inc.--Costs, B-289096.3, May 3, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION PADCO, Inc. requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protests challenging the award of a contract to The Louis Berger Group (LBG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. M/OP-01-003, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for technical support services for the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership Program. We recommend that USAID reimburse PADCO the reasonable protest costs of filing and pursuing its initial protest. The RFP contemplated a "best value" award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base period of 3 years with one 2-year option. RFP Secs. B.1, B.2, M.1(a). The RFP established, in descending order of importance, five non-cost factors: acceptability, institutional capability, past performance, key personnel, and small business subcontracting participation. RFP Sec. M.5(b). The solicitation stated that the combined weight of the evaluation factors, other than cost, was significantly more important than cost. RFP Sec. M.5(a). The RFP also provided for the evaluation of cost realism, and contemplated that proposed costs might be adjusted based on the results of the cost realism evaluation, with the adjusted cost being used in the evaluation of cost. RFP Sec. M.7. Six offerors, including PADCO and LBG, submitted initial proposals by the March 16, 2001 closing date. USAID evaluated the proposals, conducted discussions, received revised proposals by August 23, and final revised proposals by September 14. A technical evaluation committee evaluated the revised proposals and assigned scores of [DELETED] points to PADCO's proposal, and [DELETED] points to LBG's proposal. Agency Report, Tab 6, Negotiation Memorandum, at 10. The agency performed a cost evaluation of the proposals, determined that PADCO's final proposed cost of $35,901,583 and LBG's final proposed cost of $27,938,639 were each reasonable and realistic, and made no probable cost adjustments. /1/ Agency Report at 7; Tab 6, Negotiation Memorandum, at 12-19. USAID made award to LBG on September 27, after determining that LBG's proposal represented the best value. Agency Report, Tab 6, Negotiation Memorandum, at 21. On October 5, following a debriefing by USAID in which the protester learned the reasons for its nonselection for award, PADCO filed a timely protest with our Office. /2/ PADCO protested, among other things, that the agency had failed to perform an adequate cost realism analysis of the awardee's proposal, notwithstanding that the awardee's final proposed cost was significantly less than its initial proposal. In this regard, PADCO alleged that USAID apparently limited its cost realism evaluation to direct cost elements, and did not determine the realism of offerors' proposed indirect costs. /3/ Protest at 5. On November 5 the agency submitted its report responding to PADCO's protest, maintaining that the entire protest was without merit. USAID denied PADCO's allegation that the agency had failed to conduct a proper cost realism analysis, and denied the specific assertion that its analysis had not included an adequate review of LBG's proposed indirect costs.