B-298421.2; B-298421.3, Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc., November 29, 2006

B-298421.2; B-298421.3, Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc., November 29, 2006 TITLE: B-298421.2; B-298421.3, Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc., November 29, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298421.2; B-298421.3 DATE: November 29, 2006 ************************************************************************ B-298421.2; B-298421.3, Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc., November 29, 2006 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc. File: B-298421.2; B-298421.3 Date: November 29, 2006 Michael R. Charness, Esq., Suzanne D. Reifman, Esq., and Amanda J. Dietrick, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, PC, for CDM International, Inc., an intervenor. Warren D. Leishman, Esq., Agency for International Development, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protester's presentation is denied where record shows that evaluation was consistent with terms of solicitation and instructions provided to competitors. DECISION Metcalf and Eddy Services, Inc. (M&E) protests the U.S. Agency for International Development's (AID) selection of CDM International, Inc. for cost negotiations under solicitation No. 263-06-017, issued to acquire engineering services for various small-scale infrastructure projects in Egypt. M&E maintains that the agency misevaluated the firms' presentations and failed to provide adequate discussions. We deny the protest. The acquisition was conducted under the authority of the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. sections 1101-1104 (2002), which, together with the applicable implementing regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 36, provides for the acquisition of architectural-engineering (A-E) services. The solicitation called for the submission of expressions of interest and prequalification information from interested concerns. The agency received four submissions and invited all four concerns to make oral presentations supported by written materials. These invitations included a draft statement of work, a statement of the minimum qualifications of key personnel, a list of applicable documents and drawings for projects contemplated for performance under the contract, and a statement of the evaluation criteria, which were as follows: experience with the type of services required (20 of 100 available points); organizational structure and qualification of personnel (20 points); familiarity with the locality where the projects are situated (20 points); past performance (15 points); cost effectiveness (approaches to reducing and controlling costs) (10 points); and technical approach and timeline (15 points). Based on the firms' submissions and oral presentations, the agency selected M&E for final cost negotiations. CDM challenged the selection decision in a protest filed with our Office, alleging that the agency improperly had failed to engage in discussions. In response, the agency advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action by providing discussions, and we dismissed the protest as academic (B-298421, July 6, 2006). By letter dated July 2, the agency advised the four firms that they would be allotted 3 hours for their presentations--2 hours for making the presentation and 1 hour for questions from the agency's technical evaluators. Agency Report (AR), exh. 4, at 2. The firms were further advised that they were free to make any desired changes to their original written presentation materials, that the agency would make its selection decision based on the revised presentations, and that an entirely new technical evaluation panel would evaluate the revised presentations. Id. Each firm's letter also included the evaluation scores assigned by the agency during the original presentations (M&E's score was 92.6 points), and also narratives that discussed each firm's strengths and areas for improvement. By follow-up letter dated July 18, the agency further advised the firms that they should anticipate making any desired changes to their written presentation materials in response to the discussions during the oral presentation. The agency conducted presentations with three firms (one firm declined to participate further) and accepted written presentation materials from them at the conclusion of those presentations.