Sigma One Corporation, B-294719, December 2, 2004

Case: B-294719 Agency: Protester: Sigma One Corporation, B Date: 2004-12-02 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-294719 Dec 02, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sigma One Corporation, a small business, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range by the United States Agency for International Development under request for proposals (RFP) No. M/OP-03-001 for technical assistance services for the "Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment" program (RAISE Plus). The protester argues that its proposal was eliminated from the competitive range on the basis of an evaluation scheme that was not disclosed in the RFP. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294719, Sigma One Corporation, December 2, 2004 Decision Matter of: Sigma One Corporation File: B-294719 Date: December 2, 2004 Jennifer L. Bowman, Esq., James W. Norment, Esq., and Hugh R. Overholt, Esq., Ward and Smith, for the protester. James J. McCullough, Esq., and Steven A. Alerding, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson for Associates in Rural Development, Inc.; and John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Erin R. Karsman, Esq., and Jennifer D. Cisnersos, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter & Allen for International Resources Group, intervenors. Diane A. Perone, Esq., United States Agency for International Development, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where, notwithstanding general direction in solicitation that detailed information should be presented in proposals only when required by specific solicitation instructions, agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal for failing to include sufficient specificity in response to factors where solicitation did call for specific information, and therefore agency's elimination of protester's low-priced proposal from the competitive range was reasonable and consistent with the request for proposals. DECISION Sigma One Corporation, a small business, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range by the United States Agency for International Development under request for proposals (RFP) No. M/OP-03-001 for technical assistance services for the "Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment" program (RAISE Plus). The protester argues that its proposal was eliminated from the competitive range on the basis of an evaluation scheme that was not disclosed in the RFP. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of up to five indefinite-quantity contracts. One limited-scope contract was set aside for small businesses; the remainder were unrestricted. RFP at 94. The unrestricted competition (referred to as the "full scope of work" competition), at issue here, [1] sought proposals to perform services to assist small-to-medium-scale producers, small-to-medium-scale enterprises, and community-based resource managers to operate profitably in domestic and world markets. RFP at 10. Under the full scope of work competition, the RFP identified six technical criteria, in descending order of importance (with the final three criteria equal to each other in importance): technical approach, technical capability management, knowledge management, corporate capability, key personnel, and past performance. RFP at111-12. The RFP also provided for a trade-off between technical and price factors, with technical evaluation factors, when combined, significantly more important than evaluated cost, but noted that as technical rankings became closer, cost considerations would increase in importance. RFP amend. 3, at 16. With regard to the level of detail required in proposals, the RFP provided as follows: L.8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (a) The Technical Proposal in response to this solicitation should address how the offeror intends to carry out the Statement of Work... It should also contain a clear understanding of the work to be undertaken and the responsibilities of the parties involved. * * * * * (c) Detailed information should be presented only when required by specific RFP instructions. Proposals are limited to 40 pages . . . * * * * * (e) Full Scope of Work--proposals The technical proposal should, at a minimum, include the following: With reference to . . . Statement of Work, and incorporating relevant additional analysis and understanding, concisely and clearly describe how technical assistance provided under RAISE PLUS will increase rural prosperity in an environmentally sustainable way. Describe how trade and investment; policy and regulations; infrastructure . . . agribusiness and natural resource based industry competitiveness; natural resources (soils, forests, water); and producer organization and rural family capacity can be enhanced so that they contribute to significant host country economic growth over the next 5 years. RFP amend. 3, at 3-4.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...