BNUMBER:  B-270397.3 
DATE:  June 11, 1997
TITLE: The Futures Group International--Reconsideration, B-270397.3,
June 11, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:The Futures Group International--Reconsideration

File:     B-270397.3

Date:June 11, 1997

Paul Shnitzer, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for the protester.
Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 
participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Request for reconsideration is denied where it essentially repeats 
arguments made during the consideration of the original protest and 
expresses disagreement with the decision. 

DECISION

The Futures Group International (TFGI) asks that we reconsider our 
decision in The Futures Group Int'l, B-270397.2, May 16, 1996, 97-1 
CPD   para.  ___, in which we denied the firm's protest of the technical and 
cost evaluations, and the resultant contract award to Management 
Sciences for Health (MSH), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
521-95-005, issued by the Agency for International Development (AID).  
The solicitation sought offers for a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to 
implement the Health Systems (HS) 2004 Project in Haiti.[1]  

We deny the reconsideration request.

Technical Evaluation

TFGI protested that AID awarded the contract to an offeror that 
proposed a Chief of Party (COP) candidate who did not have long-term 
COP experience leading multisectoral health programs in developing 
countries, which TFGI maintained was a prerequisite for award.  The 
protester argued that this prerequisite was evidenced by AID's advice 
to TFGI that the offeror had to propose a candidate with long-term COP 
experience in a multisectoral technical assistance effort in a 
developing country.  The protester noted that AID rejected TFGI's 
first candidate because she did not have COP experience and rejected 
TFGI's second candidate because he lacked long-term experience.  TFGI 
further noted that its third candidate met all qualifications but the 
offer nevertheless was downgraded in the final evaluation with respect 
to the COP-related subcriteria.  In contrast, TFGI complained, not 
only did AID not require that MSH's candidate be replaced because he 
did not have COP experience, but MSH's score for the COP-related 
subcriteria increased throughout the evaluation.  TFGI concluded that 
the competition therefore was not conducted on an equal basis. 

AID responded that the RFP did not expressly require COP experience, 
and that the agency did not require COP experience in the course of 
negotiations.  We agreed with AID.

In requesting reconsideration, TFGI takes issue with our assessment of 
the negotiation and evaluation process.  The firm argues that we were 
factually and legally wrong in concluding that the offerors were 
treated fairly with respect to the COP-related negotiations; TFGI 
complains that the reasons AID rejected TFGI's first two COP 
candidates similarly should have led to the rejection of MSH's 
candidate.

In resolving the protest, we examined the RFP requirements, evaluation 
records, and records of and arguments regarding the negotiations with 
the two offerors.  We concluded that neither the RFP, nor AID during 
negotiations, established long-term COP experience in a multisectoral 
health effort in a developing country as a prerequisite for award so 
that either MSH's offer could not be accepted because of its 
candidate's lack of experience in that regard or TFGI was misled into 
responding to a more restrictive requirement than was applied to MSH.  
In the reconsideration request TFGI in essence repeats arguments it 
made previously and expresses disagreement with our decision.  Under 
our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting 
party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of 
fact or law or present information not previously considered that 
warrants reversal or modification of our decision.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.14(a) (1996).  The repetition of arguments made during our 
consideration of the original protest and statements of disagreement 
with our decision do not meet this standard.  R.E. Scherrer, 
Inc.--Request for Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  274 
at 2.

Evaluation of Experience

TFGI, focusing on AID's evaluation of the firm's last COP candidate, 
takes issue with our finding that there was no basis to question the 
relationship of the COP evaluations to the RFP's two COP-related 
subcriteria.  

The RFP's three technical evaluation factors--Quality and 
Responsiveness of Proposal and Technical Approach; Institutional 
Capabilities; and Personnel Capabilities--were worth 80 percent of the 
offeror's score.  The RFP listed 13 personnel positions, with the 
COP/Senior Health Administrator the only individual specified as "key" 
(i.e., essential to the work); the COP was to provide guidance and 
direction for the project's implementation and for all contractor 
personnel; serve as key counterpart to the Haitian Ministry Project 
Coordinator; and act as contractor representative.  The two 
subcriteria in the Personnel Capabilities factor that concerned the 
COP were 

     "I.  Qualifications of Senior Health Administrator, Health Policy 
     Advisor, the Public Sector Financial Management Advisor and the 
     HIS [Health Information Systems] advisor

        a.  Type and number of years of relevant experience in 
     integrated health project implementation and the provision of 
     technical assistance to the public sector.

        b.  (for Senior Health Administrator) Type and number of years 
     as team leader of a large, complex, multidisciplinary technical 
     assistance effort in a developing country."

TFGI asserts that its final candidate met all the qualifications 
reflected in the wording of the subcriteria, particularly the second 
one. 

The subcriteria focused on type, extent, and relevance of experience, 
pubic sector technical assistance, and leadership capabilities with 
respect to complex overseas efforts.  The evaluation of MSH's final 
candidate--the interview and reference checks--established him as an 
excellent candidate in all respects.  While AID recognized that TFGI's 
third candidate had certain highly relevant experience, the agency had 
serious concerns about the individual's management style; 
understanding of the contractor's role; understanding of aspects of 
TFGI's proposal; ability to resolve conflicts and disagreements; 
unwillingness to take personal responsibility; and difficulties in 
establishing effective working relationships, particularly with 
foreign governments.

The evaluation of proposals in a negotiated procurement must be both 
reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria.  See 
Mobility Sys. and Equip. Co., B-261072, Aug. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  66 at 
4.  Moreover, an agency properly may consider evaluation elements that 
logically are encompassed by the evaluation factors and subfactors 
contained in an RFP.  Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (GS), Inc.,
B-271903, Aug. 6, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  75 at 4.  In our view, expressed in 
denying TFGI's protest, there was nothing improper in AID's taking its 
concerns as summarized above into this aspect of proposal evaluation; 
TFGI's disagreement in that regard does not establish that our 
conclusion was in error.  R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Request for Recon., 
supra. 

Evaluation of Fee

The RFP provided that the offeror's cost proposal would be analyzed 
based on five criteria, worth a total of 20 points, and for realism 
and reasonableness.  The most important criterion was total 
price--cost plus fixed fee, or cost alone if no fee were 
proposed--worth 12 points, while total fee or profit was worth 2 
points, with the maximum to be awarded to a proposal that did not 
include any profit.

The RFP required the contractor to provide a total of $26.1 million in 
subgrants or subcontracts to health care providers to provide basic 
care, and for national programs in family planning, reproductive 
health, and other efforts.  TFGI's proposed fee included the cost to 
provide that subgrant/subcontract money.  TFGI also, however, 
suggested in its best and final offer (BAFO) alternative funding or 
reimbursement approaches that would allow TFGI to reduce much of its 
fee.  MSH proposed a fee for its part of the subgrant/subcontract 
effort, but no fee if it received payment through a letter of credit 
(LOC) arrangement.  The LOC procedure permits a prime contractor to 
obtain fast repayment from AID of the money passed by 
subgrant/subcontract.  The contracting officer decided to authorize 
payment by LOC and evaluated MSH's fee accordingly. 

TFGI protested that, among other things, it was not fair to accept a 
no-fee proposal from MSH.  

We dismissed this protest issue as untimely.  Our Bid Protest 
Regulations require that a protest of an apparent solicitation 
impropriety be filed before proposals are due.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) 
(1996).  We found that it should have been evident to TFGI from the 
terms of the RFP that a nonprofit competitor might well receive 
2 full points under that criterion.  Moreover, the subject was 
addressed in an amendment to the RFP issued before initial proposals 
were due relaying a series of offeror-AID question and answer 
exchanges.  One potential competitor complained that the RFP provision 
for the cost evaluation criterion in issue that maximum points would 
be awarded to a proposal that did not include profit "appears to 
penalize for-profit organizations or any other organization which 
charges a fee as opposed to an organization that does not charge a 
fee."  AID responded that it believed the RFP provision reasonable.  
We further noted that TFGI's own business proposal showed that the 
company knew that the requirement gave nonprofit competitors the 
flexibility to offer no fee for providing the subgrant/subcontract 
funds based on LOC procedures whereas for-profits like TFGI did not 
have that option.  We concluded that TFGI clearly knew the evaluation 
ramifications of the subgrant/subcontract requirement before 
submitting its initial proposal, so that the protest, filed only after 
TFGI lost the competition, was untimely in that regard. 

On reconsideration, TFGI points out that the RFP simply provided that 
an offeror proposing no fee would receive the maximum 2 points under 
that subcriterion, so that if MSH had just offered to perform without 
fee it would have been entitled to 
2 points.  TFGI explains its complaint as being that MSH offered to 
eliminate its fee on a condition that was not part of the RFP--an LOC 
arrangement--so that giving the firm credit for the fee reduction was 
not consistent with the solicitation's terms.  TFGI argues, "[i]f 
USAID had intended to accept proposals with no fee conditioned on 
invoking the LOC procedure, the RFP should have so stated." 

In an explanation of its fee in its business proposal, to which TFGI 
directed our attention in a protest filing, the firm expressly 
recognized that nonprofit competitors may bid a lower fee or no fee 
for certain costs, "and plan to use U.S. government subsidized 
advances and protection for these expenditures (such as Federal 
Reserve Letters of Credit or similar advance mechanisms)."  In that 
same protest filing, TFGI complained that MSH received almost the full 
2 points available, while TFGI was assigned a much lower score "even 
though it had offered the same type of letter of credit arrangement."  
It thus appeared from TFGI's protest itself that the firm knew that a 
no-fee proposal might be accepted, and that such proposal might be 
based on an LOC arrangement.  As stated in our prior decision, 
pursuant to section 21.2(a)(1) of our Regulations TFGI was obliged to 
protest the matter before submitting a proposal; TFGI's 
reconsideration request provides no basis to change our view.  In this 
respect, as we pointed out in our decision, the protest was untimely 
to the extent TFGI also was protesting AID's evaluation of TFGI's 
offer inclusive of the full fee, as opposed to accepting TFGI's BAFO 
suggestions regarding alternative funding and reimbursement methods.  
TFGI did not mention that aspect of the evaluation to our Office until 
more than 14 days after the firm should have known the protest basis.  
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2).

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The HS 2004 Project is intended to provide support to the 
government of Haiti in reestablishing and restructuring essential 
health services throughout the country.