B-299041, Planning And Development Collaborative International, January 24, 2007

B-299041 Jan 24, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Planning and Development Collaborative International (PDACO) protests the award of a contract to The Services Group, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 11-05-033, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for technical assistance and support for the Government of Armenia. PADCO principally argues that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions regarding a significant weakness in its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299041, Planning And Development Collaborative International, January 24, 2007 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: Planning And Development Collaborative International File: B-299041 Date: January 24, 2007 Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, for the protester. Richard P. Rector, Esq., Robert M. Reiser, Esq., DLA Piper US LLP, for The Services Group, Inc., an intervenor. John B. Alumbaugh, Esq., U.S. Agency for International Development, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency was not required to hold discussions regarding area of protester's proposal that was weak, but acceptable, and that did not prevent the protester from having a reasonable opportunity for award. DECISION Planning and Development Collaborative International (PADCO) protests the award of a contract to The Services Group, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 111'05-033, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for technical assistance and support for the Government of Armenia. PADCO principally argues that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions regarding a significant weakness in its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on January 23, 2006, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 3-year base period and two 1-year options, to implement USAID's Social Protection Systems Strengthening (SPSS) Program for improving the social protection systems in Armenia, while, at the same time, increasing opportunities for self-reliance and reducing the Armenian citizens' dependence on public support to meet basic needs. To achieve these ends, USAID sought a contractor to provide technical assistance and support for capacity-building training, commodities, and public education to select public and private sector entities targeting four key areas: (1) social insurance; (2) employment services; (3) occupational safety and labor code; and (4) social assistance programs for vulnerable populations. RFP at C-1. For each of the four key areas, the RFP set forth expected results for the 3-year base period as well as the full 5-year contract term (base plus two option periods) and sought from each offeror their expected results for the program as well. Proposals were to be evaluated on a –best value— basis considering the following three technical factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach, management approach, and personnel, (2) past performance, and (3) small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation. The technical approach, management approach, and personnel factor, which was –significantly more important than all other factors combined,— consisted of three equally weighted sub-factors: (i) clarity and demonstrated effectiveness of offeror's proposed strategies and activities, (ii) relevance of the proposed activity work, and (iii) proposed management and staffing plan. RFP at M-2. The past performance factor was composed of five sub-factors of equal weight and the SDB participation factor was composed of four equally weighted sub-factors. In its evaluation of proposals, the RFP indicated that the agency was to use the following adjectival rating scheme: outstanding, better, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. As it relates to the protest, ratings of better and acceptable were defined as follows: –Better— . . . Fully meets all solicitation requirements and significantly exceeds many of the solicitation requirements. Response exceeds an –Acceptable rating.— The areas in which the Applicant exceeds the requirements are anticipated to result in a high level of efficiency or productivity or quality. –Acceptable— . . . Meets all solicitation requirements. Complete, comprehensive, and exemplifies an understanding of the scope and depth of the task requirements as well as the Applicant's understanding of the Government's requirements. RFP at M-2. With respect to cost, which was identified as being of –significantly less importance— than the technical evaluation factors, offerors were instructed to include a detailed budget for the 5-year contract term. RFP at M-4.