McCann-Erickson USA, Inc.

B-414787 Sep 18, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights McCann-Erickson USA, Inc. (ME), of New York, New York, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124D-16-R-0046, issued by the Department of the Army for advertising services. ME argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal without meaningfully evaluating it. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:  McCann-Erickson USA, Inc. File:  B-414787 Date:  September 18, 2017 John E. Jensen, Esq., Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Travis L. Mullaney, Esq., and Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Dana J. Chase, Esq., and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's elimination of proposal from consideration is sustained where record shows that proposal was eliminated based on considerations not contemplated by solicitation's evaluation criteria. DECISION McCann-Erickson USA, Inc. (ME), of New York, New York, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124D-16-R-0046, issued by the Department of the Army for advertising services.  ME argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal without meaningfully evaluating it. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award of a hybrid[1] indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to provide the Army with a full array of advertising and marketing services for a 5-year base period and two successive option periods of, respectively, 3-years and 2-years, for a total possible period of performance of 10 years.  The ceiling value of the acquisition is $4 billion.  Firms were advised that the agency would make award on a best-value basis, considering cost/price, along with several non-cost/price evaluation criteria.  The evaluation criteria were listed in descending order of importance as follows:  technical, cost/price, and small business participation, with technical deemed significantly more important than cost/price and more important than small business participation.  RFP at 156.[2]  In addition, the RFP stated that the non-cost/price factors, in combination, were deemed significantly more important than cost/price, but that the importance of cost/price could increase to the extent that proposals were found to be relatively equal in technical merit.  Id.  The RFP also provided for the evaluation of past performance on a pass/fail or acceptable/unacceptable basis.  RFP at 155.  For cost/price purposes, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate proposals to ensure that the offerors' proposed cost/price was fair and reasonable, realistic (based upon performance of a cost realism evaluation), and balanced.  RFP at 160-161.  For source selection purposes, the RFP advised offerors that the agency intends to use two methods, evaluation of past performance on a pass/fail basis without considering it in connection with a cost/technical tradeoff, and the conduct of a cost/technical tradeoff between cost/price and the remaining non-cost/price evaluation criteria.  RFP at 155. In addition to these considerations, the RFP stated that the agency would perform a two-phase evaluation of proposals.  During phase one, written proposals would be evaluated, and during phase two, any firm whose proposal was evaluated as at least acceptable would be invited to make an oral presentation.  RFP at 155-156.  The RFP advised that the phase one evaluation contemplated a substantive evaluation of written proposals considering cost/price and the non-cost/price evaluation factors with a focus on the adequacy of the offerors' response--and the feasibility of their approach--to fulfilling the requirements of the RFP.  RFP at 157.  For purposes of evaluating proposals, the RFP advised that the agency would assign adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable under the technical and small business participation factors, and ratings of either acceptable or unacceptable under the past performance factor.  RFP at 160, 162, 163.  Each of the adjectival ratings included a narrative description or definition of the rating.  Id. In response to the solicitation, the agency received [deleted] proposals, including the proposal submitted by ME.  The record shows that, rather than evaluate the proposals as described above, the agency performed what it has termed a "compliance review."  On the basis of that compliance review, the agency eliminated [deleted] proposals submitted.  As is ...