QuanTech, Inc.--Costs, B-291226.3, March 17, 2003

B-291226.3 Mar 17, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Award was to be made on a "best value" basis. Macro was selected for award. Alleged that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions in certain areas where QuanTech's proposal was downgraded. During the time period that proposals were evaluated. Left government employment and assumed a job with an outside organization which was directly interested in this procurement. Without the member that was alleged to have the conflict. If the TEC determined that such action was warranted. QuanTech was sent 29 questions to respond to. Was clearly meritorious and that this corrective action. Was unduly delayed. The agency advises that it has been noncompetitively obtaining some services that would have been covered by this procurement from Macro. View Decision QuanTech, Inc.--Costs, B-291226.3, March 17, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION QuanTech, Inc. requests that our Office recommend that the firm be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest of an award to ORC Macro International under request for proposals (RFP) No. 52-DGNF-2-9007, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for the intercept portion of the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey. We deny the request. The solicitation contemplated the award of a contract for the intercept portion of the 2002 to 2005 Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey to be conducted at marine fishing access points to collect individual catch data, including exact species, total number of each species, and length and weight measurements. To assist in this effort, the agency relies on state participation, often in the form of state subcontracts with the intercept contractor under which the states use their own resources to conduct intercept surveys. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis, considering price, technical and past performance factors. After the agency received proposals and heard oral presentations in response to the solicitation, the agency evaluated the proposals, conducted discussions, and obtained revised final proposals from Macro and QuanTech. Macro was selected for award. In its initial protest of the award, filed September 3, 2002, QuanTech primarily alleged that the agency essentially abdicated its role as source selection authority and allowed certain states, which had inherent conflicts of interest, to control the award selection. The protester also argued that the agency improperly evaluated past performance and the proposed management approach, and alleged that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions in certain areas where QuanTech's proposal was downgraded. In response, the agency filed a report on October 8 that responded to the protester's allegations. Based on its review of the agency report, the protester filed a timely supplemental protest on October 18, contending, among other things, that the chairperson of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) had an individual conflict of interest. Specifically, the protester maintained that this person had, during the time period that proposals were evaluated, left government employment and assumed a job with an outside organization which was directly interested in this procurement, while still maintaining her position on the TEC. On October 21, the protester filed comments that responded to the agency's report, in which the protester for the first time detailed specific instances where it found the discussions to be inadequate. On November 4, the agency advised our Office and the protester that it intended to take corrective action in response to QuanTech's supplemental protest. Specifically, the agency said that it would reconstitute the TEC, without the member that was alleged to have the conflict, and reevaluate proposals, and that it would reopen negotiations, if the TEC determined that such action was warranted. Our Office dismissed the protests as academic on November 7. On November 19, QuanTech filed its request that it be reimbursed its protest costs because the agency had assertedly unduly delayed in taking corrective action on QuanTech's clearly meritorious protest. Meanwhile, the agency reconstituted a new TEC, minus the allegedly conflicted evaluator, to revaluate the proposals. Based on this reevaluation, the agency decided to reopen discussions. On December 20, QuanTech was sent 29 questions to respond to. On January 3, 2003, QuanTech supplemented its request that it be reimbursed its protest costs, asserting that these questions demonstrated that its initial protest, alleging a lack of meaningful discussions, was clearly meritorious and that this corrective action, responding to that protest, was unduly delayed. Since QuanTech filed its prior protest, there has been no performance under this protested contract.