RTI International (72049721R00004)

B-420577 Jun 13, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights RTI International (RTI), of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Resonance Global (Resonance), of Burlington, Vermont, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 72049721R-00004, which was issued by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for collaborative fisheries management in Indonesia. The protester alleges that the agency engaged in misleading discussions and challenges the best-value award determination. 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: RTI International File: B-420577 Date: June 13, 2022 Nooree Lee, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., and Michael W. Pierce, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for the protester. Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., Patrick J. Rothwell, Esq., and Anna G. Sullivan, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Resonance Global, the intervenor. Eugene Benick, Esq., and John B. Alumbaugh, Esq., United States Agency for International Development, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency engaged in misleading discussions is denied where the record provides no basis on which to conclude that discussions were misleading or otherwise improper. 2. Protest challenging agency’s selection of lower-rated, lower-cost proposal is denied where the record shows that the source selection decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION RTI International (RTI), of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Resonance Global (Resonance), of Burlington, Vermont, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 72049721R-00004, which was issued by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for collaborative fisheries management in Indonesia. The protester alleges that the agency engaged in misleading discussions and challenges the best-value award determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 27, 2021, USAID issued the RFP in accordance with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contracting by negotiation. RFP at 0217.[1] The RFP sought proposals for a contractor to provide technical support services to protect Indonesia’s marine biodiversity by improving sustainable and equitable management of fisheries. Id. Among other things, the solicitation identified four main objectives: (1) improved adoption of and compliance with evidence-based fisheries policies for priority fisheries; (2) strengthened small-scale fisheries governance; (3) increased government and market-based incentives for sustainable seafood products; and (4) improved protection of endangered, threatened, and protected marine species affected by fishing practices. RFP Statement of Objectives (SOO) at 0325. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 5‑year period of performance. Id. at 0225, 0235. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering cost and three non-cost evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach; (2) management approach; and (3) past performance. Id. at 0418-0419. The non-cost factors, when combined, were to be significantly more important than cost. Id. at 0417. The solicitation also stated that, in making the source selection decision, the contracting officer may award to a higher-priced offeror if a determination is made that the offeror’s higher technical merit is worth the additional cost/price. Id. at 0421. With respect to factor 1, technical approach, offerors were to develop a performance work statement (PWS) that addressed the offeror’s approach to meeting the stated objectives, to include defining the “expected results, performance standards, and performance assessment methods” to achieve the objectives, goals, and anticipated outcomes as described in the SOO.[2] Id. at 0397; see also id. at 0325-0330. The RFP also instructed offerors to provide a technical narrative describing their proposed “strategic approach” and methodology to achieve the goals, objectives and outcomes as proposed in their PWS. Id. at 0399. Under this factor, USAID would evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s PWS and technical approach narrative are “clear, logical and reasonably likely” to achieve the objectives and goals as described in the SOO, and the guiding principles described in section J.1.G of the RFP. Id. at 0418; Agency Report (AR) Exh.