Family Health International

B-414621 Jul 28, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Family Health International, of Durham, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to John Snow, Inc. (JSI), of Boston, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SOL-611-16-000001, issued by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for services in support of the "Supporting an AIDS-FREE ERA" (SAFE) program in the Republic of Zambia. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of technical proposals and award decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:  Family Health International File:  B-414621 Date:  July 28, 2017 James K. Kearney, Esq., Gary H. Nunes, Esq., and Joshua L. Rodman, Esq., Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, for the protester. Jason A. Carey, Esq., Andrew R. Guy, Esq., and Michael T. Wagner, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for John Snow, Inc., the intervenor. R. René Dupuy, Esq., United States Agency for International Development, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's technical evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Family Health International, of Durham, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to John Snow, Inc. (JSI), of Boston, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SOL-611-16-000001, issued by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for services in support of the "Supporting an AIDS-FREE ERA" (SAFE) program in the Republic of Zambia.  The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of technical proposals and award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 7, 2016, USAID issued the RFP seeking services in support of its mission to support the SAFE program[1] in Zambia.  RFP at 1-2.  The solicitation anticipated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee completion-type contract, with a 5-year period of performance.  The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis considering the following four factors, in descending order of importance:  strategic and technical approach, management approach, past performance, and cost.  RFP, Section M, at 4.  The strategic and technical approach factor, management approach factor, and past performance factor, when combined, were significantly more important than cost.  Id. Under the strategic and technical approach factor, the RFP also identified four subfactors of equal importance:  service delivery; capacity building for service delivery; capacity building for financial management and transition; and performance monitoring and evaluation.  Under the management approach factor, the solicitation identified two subfactors, also of equal importance:  management and staffing plan; and key personnel.  The solicitation explained that offerors would receive an overall summary rating for their non-cost proposals.  The RFP further provided that, while cost would not be given a rating, it would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and realism, and may be used in the best-value determination.  Id. at 4. USAID received proposals from five offerors, including Family Health and JSI.  Family Health is the incumbent contractor for the requirement.  Following an evaluation of initial proposals, the contracting officer established a competitive range of two offerors, Family Health and JSI.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, Revised Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) Memo, at 1; Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 7.  The agency provided the offerors in the competitive range with discussion letters, which described the weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies identified by the agency in the offerors' proposals.  AR, Tab 8, Discussions Letter, at 1-10.