B-311462.2; B-311462.3, Fintrac, Inc., October 14, 2008
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
Tenley
A. Carp, Esq., Victor G. Klingelhofer, Esq., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cohen
Mohr LLP, for the protester.
Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., G. Drew Fuller, Esq., and
Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Sebaly Shillito + Dyer, for the intervenor.
John B. Alumbaugh, Esq., and Elizabeth A. Ransom, Esq., Agency for
International Development, for the agency.
Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1.
Protest challenging agency’s revision to scoring methodology used to
evaluate offerors’ technical proposals is denied where the revision reasonably
addressed an error in the agency’s prior scoring methodology.
2. Protest
challenging agency’s evaluation of offerors’ technical and cost proposals is
denied where the record supports the reasonableness of the evaluations.
DECISION
Fintrac, Inc. protests the
award of a contract to CNFA, Inc. by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), under request for proposals (RFP) No.
M-OAA-DCHA-AFP-07-0011, for assistance with the agency’s Market Chain
Enhancement Program (
BACKGROUND
The RFP was issued in March 2007 and sought proposals to
provide economic development assistance to
The RFP stated that offerors would be evaluated on the
basis of six evaluation factors. The RFP
stated that the factors were listed “in descending order of importance,” but
also assigned specific points to the factors; these points were inconsistent
with the “descending order of importance” evaluation scheme, as follows: technical approach (25 points), personnel (20
points), corporate capability (10 points), work and milestone plan (35 points),
and past performance (10 points).
Other relevant sections of the RFP advised that the agency
would evaluate offerors’ proposed approaches to meet the requirements of the
statement of work (SOW), which contained nine “tasks” for contract
performance. In turn, each of the tasks
identified more “requirements,” under which the solicitation identified a
number of “standards.” RFP sect. C. With respect to costs, the RFP stated that
cost would be evaluated for reasonableness, allowability, allocability, and
cost realism. RFP at 96. The solicitation also stated that, for
purposes of the selection decision, “[a]ll technical evaluation factors, when
combined, are significantly more important than cost.”
Initial Evaluation and Protest
USAID received proposals from six offerors, including
Fintrac and CNFA, by the initial closing date of
In September 2007, USAID established a competitive range
of three offerors’ proposals, including proposals from Fintrac and CNFA. The agency notified Fintrac of the
competitive range determination and conducted discussions regarding a number of
issues. As relevant here, USAID advised
Fintrac that its proposed salaries for six “local hire specialist positions”
were not realistic, because they “appear to be between approximately [deleted] lower
than the prevailing market rate.” Agency
Report (AR), Tab 20, Discussions Questions,
In February 2008, USAID conducted a second round of
discussions with the offerors whose proposals were in the competitive
range. As relevant here, the agency
advised Fintrac that Haitian law required offerors to provide severance
benefits equal to 1 month of salary per year of service. AR, Tab 34, Discussions Questions,
In its evaluation of final proposal revisions, USAID
weighted the evaluation factors as it indicated in its amendment to the
solicitation. The agency also weighted
the subfactors under each evaluation factor in descending order of
importance. Contracting Officer (CO)
Statement at 4. At the conclusion of the
evaluation, the technical proposals and most probable cost were assessed as
follows:
FINTRAC |
CNFA |
|
TOTAL SCORE
(100 points) |
88.1 |
89.0 |
Most Probable Cost |
$25,687,783 |
$23,999,834 |
AR, Tab 46, Initial Source Selection Decision (SSD), at
6-7, 12, 22.
Given these results, USAID concluded that the technical
proposals were essentially equal. Thus,
the difference between the proposed costs became the primary discriminator;
given CNFA’s lower proposed costs, the agency selected its proposal for
award.
USAID notified Fintrac of the award decision on March 18,
and provided a debriefing on April 1. On
April 4, Fintrac filed a protest with our Office, and on May 5, the agency took
corrective action in response. Because
the agency’s corrective action rendered the protest academic, it was dismissed
on May 6.
Reevaluation and the Second Award Decision
During the course of the reevaluation, the CO concluded
that the initial scoring methodology of weighting the subfactors in descending order
of importance was inconsistent with the solicitation. The CO instead instructed the TEC to treat
the subfactors as equal in weight. CO
Statement at 4. Despite this change, the
offerors were not permitted to revise their proposals. The use of the new scoring methodology
resulted in a higher score for CNFA, and a lower score for Fintrac.
The results of the final revaluation were as follows:
FINTRAC |
CNFA |
|
Work and Milestone Plan (35
points) |
30.2 |
33.4 |
Subfactor (a) |
8.52 |
10.06 |
Subfactor (b) |
10 |
11.67 |
Subfactor (c) |
11.67 |
11.67 |
Technical Approach (25
points) |
19.25 |
23.1 |
Subfactor (a) |
4.5 |
7.4 |
Subfactor (b) |
6.44 |
7.37 |
Subfactor (c) |
8.33 |
8.33 |
Personnel (20 points) |
16.0 |
15.2 |
Corporate Capability (10 points) |
9.5 |
9.3 |
Subfactor (a) |
2.0 |
1.81 |
Subfactor (b) |
2.5 |
2.5 |
Subfactor (c) |
2.5 |
2.5 |
Subfactor (d) |
2.5 |
2.5 |
Past Performance (10 points) |
9.7 |
8.6 |
Subfactor (a) |
1.36 |
1.07 |
Subfactor (b) |
1.36 |
1.07 |
Subfactor (c) |
1.36 |
1.07 |
Subfactor (d) |
1.36 |
1.07 |
Subfactor (e) |
1.43 |
1.43 |
Subfactor (f) |
1.43 |
1.43 |
Subfactor (g) |
1.43 |
1.43 |
TOTAL (100
points) |
84.7 |
89.6 |
Proposed Cost |
$[deleted] |
$23,999,834 |
Fixed Fee |
$[deleted] |
$0 |
Most Probable Cost |
$25,687,783 |
$23,999,834 |
AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 7, 20, 38.[1]
USAID again selected CNFA’s proposal for award, concluding
its technical proposal was rated higher than Fintrac’s.
DISCUSSION
Fintrac challenges the reasonableness of USAID’s
evaluation of technical and cost proposals, the adequacy of the agency’s
discussions regarding Fintrac’s proposed costs, and the reasonableness of the
selection decision. For the reasons
discussed below, we find no basis to sustain the protest.[2]
Evaluation and Scoring Methodology
As an initial matter, Fintrac argues that, during the reevaluation,
USAID improperly changed the weights applied to the technical evaluation subfactors. Fintrac argues that the revised scoring
methodology was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. We disagree.
As discussed above, the RFP set forth two conflicting
bases for the evaluation of technical proposals. On the one hand, it stated that the factors
were listed in descending order of importance; on the other hand, it identified
point scores for factors that were inconsistent with a scheme of descending weight. USAID clarified this ambiguity in amendment 3
to the solicitation, stating that the point scores established the weight for
the evaluation factors. RFP amend. 3,
Q&A No. 42. As also discussed above,
USAID concluded during the corrective action that the scoring methodology for
the technical evaluation subfactors was flawed because although the RFP was
silent as to the weight of the subfactors, the agency had weighted them in
descending order of importance. The CO
therefore instructed the TEC to evaluate offerors’ proposals by giving equal
weight to the subfactors. CO Statement
at 4; Supp. CO Statement at 18.
Solicitations must advise offerors of the basis upon which
their proposals will be evaluated. Lloyd
H. Kessler, Inc., B-284693,
The RFP clearly stated that the phrase “descending order
of importance” applied to the major evaluation factors, as follows: “The following technical evaluation
criteria shall be evaluated in descending order of importance. (a) Technical Approach,
(b) Personnel. . . .” RFP at 96
(emphasis added). Although the
solicitation initially contained a patent ambiguity regarding the weights
accorded to the evaluation factors, this ambiguity was resolved in amendment 3
to the RFP. In contrast, the RFP was
silent as to the weight of the subfactors.
We have recognized where a solicitation does not disclose the relative weight
of evaluation factors or subfactors in a FAR Part 15 procurement, they should
be considered approximately equal in importance or weight. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., B-297553,
Evaluation of the Offerors’ Technical Proposals
Next, Fintrac argues that USAID’s evaluation of the
offerors’ proposals was unreasonable under three of the technical evaluation
factors: (1) technical approach, (2)
work and milestone plan, and (3) personnel.
The protester also argues, and the agency concedes, that the scoring of
CNFA’s proposal under the personnel evaluation factor was incorrect and
resulted in an additional 0.2 points for the awardee for which the agency
cannot account. As discussed below, we
conclude that neither this error, nor another minor error concerning the
evaluation of Fintrac under the technical approach factor, resulted in any
prejudice to Fintrac.
The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal or quote,
including experience, is a matter within the agency’s discretion. IPlus, Inc., B-298020, B-298020.2,
1. Work and milestone plan
Fintrac argues that USAID unreasonably identified a
weakness in its work and milestone plan based on a discrepancy in its proposal
regarding the requirement to assist businesses.
The protester also contends that the agency unreasonably ignored a
weakness in CNFA’s proposal. We find no
merit in these arguments.
The RFP required offerors to submit a work and milestone
plan to show how they would meet each of the contract performance
requirements. Subfactor (a) of this
evaluation factor stated that offerors were required to link the plan to the
deliverables schedule of the SOW. As
described above, the SOW contained nine “tasks” for contract performance, each
of which had a number of “requirements,” which in turn had a number of
“standards.” Task 2 requires the
contractor to assist small and medium Haitian firms with “compet[ing] at the
national and international level.” RFP
at 25. Requirement 2.3, standard 2 of
this task sets a goal that, at a minimum, “Five Hundred (500) business services
providers identified receive support in management functions, marketing and
operations.”
The agency identified two weaknesses in Fintrac’s proposal
under subfactor (a) regarding requirement 1.5, and requirement 2.3; the
protester challenges the agency’s later evaluation. In its evaluation of Fintrac’s proposal under
requirement 2.3, the agency concluded:
[T]here is a discrepancy in the number of Business Service Providers offered up: in the Technical Approach text 1000 [Business Service Providers] will be assisted whereas in the Results Framework Summary Table the number is 500. Although this could be attributed to a typo it may also mean that Technical Approach overstates results.
AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 24. As a result, the agency assessed a weakness
in Fintrac’s proposal in this area.
Fintrac argues that the reference to 1,000 businesses in
its proposal was merely a typographical error, and that USAID should have
understood the proposal to mean 500.
Alternatively, the protester argues that it should not have been
penalized for proposing to assist more business than required under the
solicitation. USAID argues that it assessed
a weakness because the protester’s proposal either demonstrated a lack of
understanding of the requirements, or overstated the results to be achieved
during contract performance. In this
regard, the agency states that there are not likely to be more than 500
businesses in
We think the record here supports the evaluation. To the extent there was a discrepancy between
the protester’s description of the number of businesses it would assist, we do
not think the agency was required to treat it as a typographical error to be
resolved in the protester’s favor, as there was no clear indication which
figure was the correct number. Further,
we think the agency could reasonably conclude that proposing to assist 1,000
businesses showed a lack of understanding of the requirements of the
solicitation.
With regard to the evaluation of CNFA’s proposal, Fintrac
argues that USAID did not reasonably consider weaknesses in the awardee’s
description of certain contract deliverables in this area of its proposal. In fact, the agency did cite this concern in
its evaluation of CNFA’s proposal under subfactor (a) of the work and milestone
factor, stating as follows: “A number of
deliverables are not included in the revised Plan . . . and the proposal lacks
specificity regarding the Deliverables schedule.” AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 8. Based on this weakness, CNFA received only
10.06 out of a possible 11.67 points under subfactor (a). To the extent that Fintrac argues that CNFA
should have received a lower score, the protester’s disagreement with the
agency’s judgment provides no basis to sustain the protest.
In sum, for this subfactor, we think that USAID reasonably
identified two weaknesses in Fintrac’s proposal, and one weakness in CNFA’s
proposal. On this record, we think that
the agency’s scores were reasonable.
2. Personnel
Next, Fintrac contends that USAID’s evaluation of both
offerors’ proposed personnel was unreasonable. The protester argues that the agency
improperly downgraded its proposal based on the qualifications of its proposed
personnel, and also failed to consider the lack of a letter of commitment from
one of CNFA’s proposed personnel. We find no merit to these arguments.
USAID’s evaluation of Fintrac’s proposed personnel
identified two weaknesses concerning the experience of four proposed personnel
candidates: tourism specialist, market
analyst, alliances manager, and tourism sector manager. AR,
Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 28. The agency concluded
that the resumes for these individuals did not demonstrate relevant experience. AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 28.
Fintrac argues that the RFP stated that only “key
personnel” would be evaluated, and thus these four individuals--who were not
designated as “key”--should not have been assessed. In this regard, the protester notes that the
term “key personnel” was not defined in the RFP, and that offerors were
instructed to designate which personnel they deemed “key.” See RFP amend. 3, Questions and Answer
No. 32. Further, Fintrac points out that
the RFP did not require the submission of resumes for individuals who were not
identified as key personnel. RFP at
84. Thus, although Fintrac submitted the
resumes in question, it argues that the agency was not permitted to evaluate
them.
As an initial matter, we think this argument is untimely
because it could have been raised in Fintrac’s initial protest. Instead, this contention was raised for the
first time in the protester’s comments on the agency report. Bid Protest Regulations,
4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2008) (protests must be filed within 10 days of date
when protester knew or should have known of the basis for its protest). In this regard, the protester knew based on its
debriefing that the agency found a weakness in its proposed personnel, and thus
knew or should have known the basis for this protest argument. See AR, Tab 48, Fintrac Debriefing,
In any event, we have reviewed the RFP and disagree with
the protester’s interpretation. The RFP
neither explicitly states nor implies, as the protester argues, that only key
personnel would be evaluated. Instead,
the RFP at Section M states that personnel will be evaluated as follows:
USAID will evaluate the personnel proposed as it relates to the offeror’s capability in performing the tasks required under this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the relevant qualifications of the offeror’s proposed personnel as demonstrated by their professional capability/experience, appropriate academic credentials and training, relevant field experience, and any other experience relevant to the SOW.
RFP amend. 3, at 96.
While Fintrac may not have been required to submit resumes
for these individuals, we will not conclude that the agency acted improperly in
reviewing them. On this record, we find
no merit to the protester’s argument.
With regard to the evaluation of CNFA’s proposed
personnel, Fintrac argues that the awardee failed to provide a required letter
of commitment for its proposed agriculture sector coordinator, a position CNFA
had identified as “key.” The RFP
required offerors to submit resumes and letters of commitment for all proposed
key personnel. RFP at 84.
CNFA’s initial proposal included a letter, dated April 17,
2007, from its proposed agriculture sector coordinator, in which he committed
to serve in that position for the duration of the contract. AR, Tab 10, CNFA Initial Proposal,
When USAID conducted a second round of discussions with
the offerors on
Although we agree with the protester that CNFA did not
submit an updated signed statement of commitment from this individual,
Fintrac’s contention that CNFA did not confirm the availability of its proposed
key personnel candidate elevates form over substance. The record shows that CNFA submitted two
letters of commitment, and stated in writing that the individual had confirmed
his availability. In short, we see
nothing unreasonable in the agency’s decision to accept CNFA’s representation
on this matter. We also note, for the
record, that Fintrac has not alleged, or submitted evidence to suggest, that
the representation was inaccurate.
3. Technical approach
Next, Fintrac argues that the agency unreasonably assessed
a weakness in its proposal under subfactor (a) of the technical approach
evaluation factor. The protester also
argues that the agency unreasonably awarded CNFA’s proposal a higher evaluation
score, despite identifying similar weaknesses in its proposal.
The technical approach evaluation factor stated that USAID
would “evaluate how well the offeror’s program technical approach relates” to
three subfactors. RFP
at 96. Subfactor (a) stated that
offerors would be evaluated based on the following standard: “The technical approach as demonstrated by
program strategy and methodology taking into account each result, requirement,
standard and target, the rationale, any key principles for selection of
strategies, activities and approaches.”
In its evaluation of Fintrac’s proposal under subfactor
(a), the agency identified four weaknesses in the following areas: SOW requirement 1.2, concerning the
identification of non-traditional, non-agricultural value chains; requirement
2.4, concerning assisting Haitian firms in national and international
competition; requirement 3.1, concerning improving the business environment;
and requirement 5.1, concerning protecting and increasing the assets of the
poor. AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 24-25. The protester challenges only the evaluation
of its proposal under SOW requirement 1.2, and does not challenge the agency’s
evaluation concerning the other three weaknesses.
With regard to requirement 1.2, USAID concluded that
Fintrac’s proposal had a weakness concerning the development of non-traditional,
non-agricultural value chains, as follows:
The TEC found that while Fintrac had indeed finally identified three non-agricultural value chains, it found FINTRAC’s response equivocal and [found] that [it] did not make a strong and convincing case that it had properly screened, identified and tested any of them. Each of the proposed value chains merited a brief description not exceeding two paragraphs and no further text elaborating a technical approach to support[] the value chain was provided.
AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD at 25.
The agency also expressed concern that one of the proposed
three value chains, wherein farmers would build homes with Fintrac support,
would be “condition[ed] on the future success of Fintrac’s work elsewhere.”
Fintrac argues that USAID’s evaluation was unreasonable
because the requirement to screen, identify and test value chains was a
performance requirement, and that offerors were not required to demonstrate
achievement of these results as part of their proposal. The agency contends that this element of its
evaluation was minor because it was only one of several that comprised the
weakness concerning requirement 1.2, and therefore had little or no effect on
the overall competition.
We agree with the protester that the RFP anticipated that
screening and testing was a performance requirement, and not a requirement of
the proposal. Thus, we conclude, there
is no basis for this specific aspect of the weakness assessed in Fintrac’s
proposal. However, we also agree with
the agency that this criticism was only one element of the weakness relating to
Fintrac’s proposal under requirement 1.2.
In this regard, the agency also criticized Fintrac’s proposal for a home
building value chain, and the lack of substantive detail regarding all three
value chains.
We do not think that the agency’s error in assessing a
weakness for Fintrac’s proposal regarding screening, identification and testing
of value chains prejudiced Fintrac.
CNFA’s score for subfactor (a) was 2.9 points higher than
Fintrac’s. As discussed above, the
agency evaluation of the protester’s proposal identified four weaknesses, and
the screening criticism was only part of one of those four. In contrast, CNFA’s proposal had one
weakness. We do not think the record
here shows any possibility that the agency’s error affected the overall outcome
of the competition, i.e., enables Fintrac to overcome CNFA’s 2.9 point
advantage under subfactor (a) of the technical approach factor, or the
awardee’s 4.9 point overall advantage under the technical evaluation. In this regard, our Office will not sustain a
protest absent a showing of competitive prejudice, that is, unless the
protester demonstrates that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have a
substantial chance of receiving award. McDonald-Bradley,
B-270126,
Fintrac also argues that it was treated unequally because
CNFA received a higher score under subfactor (a), despite the agency’s
evaluation that the awardee also did not provide enough detail regarding
requirement 1.2. In this regard, the
agency concluded that CNFA’s proposal contained the following weakness: “Requirement 1.2 was only partially met by
identifying three new non-agricultural value chains: textiles, transport & logistics and
construction. Because the FPR lacks
specificity, the TEC has determined that a weakness still exists.” AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 9. We think the protester’s argument here lacks merit. As discussed above, Fintrac received four
weaknesses under subfactor (a) of the technical approach evaluation
factor--three of which it does not challenge in this protest. CNFA, in contrast, received only one weakness
under subfactor (a), concerning the adequacy of its description for requirement
1.2. On this record, we think that the
agency reasonably evaluated both offerors as lacking detail regarding their
proposals for
non-traditional, non-agricultural value chains, and we find no merit to the
protester’s argument that the two offerors should have received equivalent
scores.
4. Scoring error in CNFA evaluation
Finally, Fintrac argues that USAID’s corrective action
resulted in an improper
0.2 point increase to CNFA’s proposal under the personnel factor. CNFA’s proposal initially received 15 points,
but after the corrective action its score in this area was
15.2 points. As the protester correctly
notes, the personnel evaluation factor had no subfactors, and was therefore not
reevaluated by the agency during the corrective action--the purpose of which
was to correct the improper weighting of the technical evaluation subfactors. The agency acknowledges the changed point
score, and states that it cannot account for the 0.2 point increase to CNFA’s
proposal. Supp. CO Statement at 19.
Notwithstanding this error, we find no basis to sustain
the protest. Given the fact that CNFA’s
proposal received 2.9 more points than Fintrac for this subfactor, and had an
overall 4.9 point technical point advantage, we do not think this additional
0.2 point difference--or the minor error concerning one of the four weaknesses
assessed against the protester’s proposal for subfactor (a) of the technical
approach factor--prejudiced the protester.
Evaluation of CNFA’s Decision Not to Propose a Fee
Next, Fintrac argues that USAID used an undisclosed
evaluation criterion in selecting CNFA for award. In its initial protest, Fintrac argued that
USAID’s evaluation of CNFA’s proposed costs was not in accordance with the RFP
because CNFA did not propose a fee. In
USAID’s response to the protest, the CO stated that the RFP did not require
offerors to propose a fee or prohibit not-for-profit entities from submitting
proposals without a fee.[3] As relevant here, the agency noted that although
not-for-profit entities such as CNFA were not “motivated” by earning a profit,
the agency had no concerns that such offerors posed a risk to contract
performance in the absence of such motivation.
CO Statement at 37.
Fintrac contends that CO’s remarks indicate that the
agency had a bias in favor of not-for-profit entities. USAID argues that the protester takes the
CO’s statement concerning the risk posed by a non-profit entity out of context. We agree with the agency. The agency’s response addressed the narrow
issue of whether it was reasonable to conclude that an offeror that did not
seek to earn a profit from performing the contract could realistically perform
the contract. We do not think the
statements referenced by the protester indicate bias in favor of non-profit
offerors. Moreover, the protester does
not allege or identify any contemporaneous evaluation or source selection
documents where the alleged bias might have manifested itself.[4] On this record, we find no merit to the
protester’s arguments.
Discussions Regarding Fintrac’s Proposed Costs
Finally, Fintrac argues that the discussions conducted by
USAID regarding its proposed costs were unequal and misleading in two
areas. The protester contends that (1)
discussions were unequal because they improperly instructed Fintrac to increase
its proposed salaries, but did not do the same for CNFA, and (2) the agency
incorrectly instructed Fintrac to increase its costs for severance pay based on
local Haitian legal requirements.
Fintrac argues that these discussions improperly induced it to increase
its proposed costs, and that absent these increases, Fintrac’s proposed costs
would have been lower than CNFA’s. For
the reasons discussed below, we disagree; we also think certain of these assertions
are untimely.
Discussions, when conducted, must be meaningful, that is,
they may not be misleading and must identify proposal deficiencies and
significant weaknesses that could reasonably be addressed in a manner to
materially enhance the offeror’s potential for receiving award. PAI Corp., B-298349,
As an initial matter, we think the protester’s arguments
are wholly unpersuasive. In its initial
protest, Fintrac argued that if the agency had not misled the company into
raising its proposed salaries, the protester’s overall proposed price would
have been $24,231,505. Protest at
30. In its comments on the agency
report, the protester cites a different figure, arguing that its overall cost
would have been $24,479,725.[5] Protester’s Comments on AR at 23. Neither amount, however, is less than CNFA’s
proposed cost of $23,999,834. On this
record, even if we agreed with Fintrac--and we do not--we conclude that there
was no possible prejudice to Fintrac based on the agency’s actions here. McDonald-Bradley, supra; see
also, Statistica, 102 F.3d
at 1681.
With regard to the discussions, USAID did not, as the
protester contends, instruct the protester to increase its proposed salaries to
any particular level. Instead, the
agency stated that it was concerned that, for certain labor categories, Fintrac
had proposed salaries that were lower than the prevailing market rates--in some
cases only [deleted] of those rates. See
AR, Tab 20, Discussions Questions for Fintrac,
With regard to the severance pay issue, we conclude that
this protest argument was not timely raised.
Fintrac argued in its initial protest that the agency’s discussions on
In sum, we see nothing in this record that supports
sustaining Fintrac’s protest.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1]
The specific points awarded for each factor and subfactor, and the most
probable cost calculations, are listed here as they appear in the revised
SSD. We note that certain of the evaluation
factor scores reflect rounding-off judgments by the agency. In addition, the SSD incorrectly listed the
score for CNFA under subfactor (a) of the work and milestone plan as 10.6
points instead of 10.06 as indicated in the final TEC report. USAID confirms that 10.06 points is the
correct score.
[2]
In pursuing this protest, Fintrac raises several collateral issues. For example, Fintrac argues that the TEC
evaluators did not follow the agency’s instructions for completing individual
evaluation worksheets. We think this
argument lacks merit because the record shows that the TEC reports represented
the consensus of its members, and that the TEC reports, as well as the SSD,
adequately document the agency’s evaluation judgments. We have reviewed all of the protester’s
arguments, and conclude that none provides a basis for sustaining the
protest. Additionally, the protester
raised several arguments in its initial protest that were addressed by the
agency in its report, but were not subsequently addressed in the protester’s
comments on the agency report. We
consider all such issues abandoned. See
Citrus College; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004,
2004 CPD para. 104 at 8 n.4.
[3]
On this point, we agree with the agency.
The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate offerors proposed costs as
follows: “COST: The price of the proposal is the total
estimated cost, plus fee.” RFP at 96. We see no difference between proposing a fee
of $0, and CNFA’s proposed approach of omitting any reference to a fee. Furthermore, the record shows that USAID
conducted a detailed cost realism analysis, and concluded that CNFA would be
able to perform the contract based on its proposed costs. See AR Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 18-23,
44.
[4]
To the extent that Fintrac contends that the CO Statement indicates a general
bad-faith intent to favor not-for-profit offerors, we find no basis for this
allegation. Government officials are
presumed to act in good faith, and a protester’s claim that contracting
officials were motivated by bias or bad faith must be supported by convincing
proof; we will not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement
officials on the basis of inference or supposition. Harris Enters., Inc., B-311143,
[5] Fintrac does not explain why the figures listed in its protest and comments on the agency report differ, nor does the protester provide a detailed explanation as to how it calculated either amount.