BNUMBER: B-277503
DATE: October 20, 1997
TITLE: Northwest Management, Inc., B-277503, October 20, 1997
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Northwest Management, Inc.
File: B-277503
Date:October 20, 1997
Vincent P. Corrao and James W. Garrett for the protester.
Richard Salazar, Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably determined that (1) protester's quotation presented
some performance risk where protester had not clearly identified its
work force as required by the solicitation and had no experience using
the particular methodology to be applied under the solicitation; and
(2) given this risk, protester's quotation did not offer the best
value to the government despite its slightly lower price.
DECISION
Northwest Management, Inc. protests the issuance, by the Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture, of a purchase order for stream
surveys on the Lolo Creek Drainage in Clearwater National Forest,
Idaho to Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. under request for quotations
(RFQ) No. R1-5-97-21. The protester argues that it should have
received the purchase order because its quotation represented a better
value to the government than Clearwater's.
We deny the protest.
The RFQ sought a contractor (or contractors) to collect, and compile
into a report, stream stability and fish habitat data on streams
within the Clearwater National Forest. The streams to be surveyed
were grouped under three items: Lolo Creek Drainage, Pete King Creek
Drainage, and Canyon Creek Drainage. Vendors were advised that more
than one purchase order might be issued. Vendors were further advised
that selection of a contractor (or contractors) would be based on the
following criteria, and that a narrative response to the criteria was
to be submitted with the quotation:
qualifications and credentials of personnel who will be assigned
to supervise and perform the work;
past performance, including ability to produce a final report
detailing existing conditions, limiting factors, population
statistics, and recommended habitat improvement actions;[1]
experience of personnel in the project area or similar geographic
areas; and
firm's ability to undertake and complete this project on time.
The RFQ also indicated that firms' prices would be evaluated.[2]
Northwest submitted a quotation totaling $20,996.10 for item No. 1
(Lolo Creek Drainage) only. Clearwater submitted prices for all three
items; its price for item No. 1 was $21,023.70 (i.e., $27.60 more than
Northwest's). On July 1, the contracting officer notified Clearwater
that it had been selected to perform the work under all three item
numbers. Northwest was notified of the selection of Clearwater on
July 7 and protested to our Office on July 14.[3]
Northwest objects to the award of item No. 1 to Clearwater. The
protester alleges that the agency failed to consider its quotation
because it was for one item only and the agency wished to avoid making
multiple awards, despite the fact that the RFQ provided for them. In
this regard, the protester states that one of the evaluators told its
representative that the contracting officer stated that "he saw no
reason to award to more than one contractor." Protester's Comments,
Sept. 2, 1997, at 2. In the alternative, the protester argues that
the agency lacked a reasonable basis for passing over its quotation in
favor of Clearwater's higher-priced one.
The contracting officer denies that Northwest's quotation was excluded
from consideration because the protester had quoted a price for the
item No. 1 work only. The contracting officer explains that the
quotation was evaluated--a claim which is supported by the existence
of evaluator worksheets assessing the strengths and weaknesses of
Northwest's narrative response to the evaluation criteria--but that it
was not selected, because, in the contracting officer's judgment, it
did not represent the best value to the government.
Given the worksheets, we see no reason to question the contracting
officer's explanation. Moreover, even if, as the protester alleges,
the contracting officer did state, prior to the selection, that he saw
no reason to select more than one vendor, we do not think that this
statement implies that any vendor not quoting on all three items had
been excluded from consideration. Rather, the more reasonable
interpretation of the statement is that the contracting officer had
concluded, based upon his review of the quotations, that the same firm
represented the best value under all three items and that it had the
capability to perform all three.
In response to the protester's second allegation, the contracting
officer explains that he selected Clearwater over Northwest because he
saw some risk of the agency's not receiving timely, accurate data from
the latter firm, and decided that this risk was not worth Northwest's
$27.60 price advantage. The contracting officer's conclusion was
based on Northwest's omission of information called for by the RFQ,
specifically, its failure to identify all of the individuals on its
data collection team and its failure to furnish evidence that its team
has previously performed a study using the methodology prescribed by
the solicitation here. With regard to the study requirement, the
contracting officer notes that the reports furnished by the protester
in response to the solicitation requirement for "two reports from
similar projects completed by the team to be assigned to this project"
were coauthored by an individual not proposed by Northwest as a team
member for this project; that none of the proposed team members, other
than the principal investigator, was involved in the data collection
or writing of the reports; that the reports did not reflect the use of
the technique required under this RFQ; and that the reports were not
produced by Northwest.[4]
Northwest takes issue with the contracting officer's conclusion. The
protester maintains that it did identify all members of its team, and
that the contracting officer therefore had no reason to be concerned
about its ability to recruit and train qualified personnel. Northwest
further argues that the contracting officer should have accepted the
reports that it furnished as evidence of its ability to perform
despite the fact that they used different methodologies than the
methodology required here and the fact that most of the team members
proposed here had no involvement in producing them. In the latter
regard, the protester contends that any potential contractor is likely
to experience some staff turnover, and, thus, that none is likely to
be able to furnish a report worked on by the entire team that it
proposes here.
When an agency evaluation is challenged, we will examine that
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the
stated evaluation criteria. Carol Solomon & Assocs., B-271713, July
19, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 28 at 2. Based on our review of the record here,
we think that the agency's criticisms of the protester's proposal were
valid, and that they furnished it with a reasonable basis for
concluding that selection of Northwest would entail greater
performance risk than selection of Clearwater.
First, although the protester claims that it did identify all members
of its team, our review of its quotation shows that this is simply not
true. While Northwest identified 10 individuals whom it was
considering for positions as stream survey crew leaders, it
identified none of the crew members who were to assist the crew
leaders in collecting data.
Northwest attempts to discount the omission of this information,
arguing that it is fully qualified to perform the work based on its
years of experience in the field, and asserting that its
qualifications could have been confirmed had the agency contacted its
prior clients. The RFQ put firms on notice that they had to furnish
specific information regarding their team composition. It was the
firms' responsibility to submit adequately written quotations which
could be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in the
solicitation. It is well established that, no matter how competent a
firm may be, it runs the risk of not being selected for award if its
fails to submit an adequately written offer (or quotation, as in this
case). INFOCUS Communications, B-256244, May 31, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 330
at 5-6.
We think that the contracting officer reasonably concluded, based on
Northwest's failure to identify a team of individuals committed to
this particular project, that it was possible that the protester would
need to recruit additional personnel to complete the project, and that
this introduced an element of risk into its chances of completing the
project on schedule.
Regarding the protester's second argument, we think that the
contracting officer reasonably concluded that the reports furnished by
Northwest, which had not been completed by the team to be assigned to
this project and which did not reflect the use of the technique
required here, did not demonstrate that the protester had the ability
to produce a satisfactory final report under the RFQ here. Northwest
did not propose a team that was slightly different from the team that
had worked on those reports, as its argument regarding staff turnover
implies; it proposed a team that was, with the exception of its
principal investigator, completely different.
In comparison, with respect to the quotation submitted by the awardee,
the contracting officer concluded that the firm had demonstrated "a
proven track record of providing the [agency] with accurate and timely
data, responsive and cooperative behavior, a thorough understanding of
the biological and logistical variables which may be encountered, and
experienced and competent people." Contracting Officer's Statement at
p. F-3. The protester does not challenge these conclusions, and we
see no basis in the record to question them.
In sum, we see no basis in the record to find unreasonable the
contracting officer's conclusion that there was greater performance
risk associated with an award to Northwest than with an award to
Clearwater and that this risk was not compensated for by Northwest's
de minimis price advantage of $27.60.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, offerors were
instructed to cite contracts for similar work with the Forest Service
and other agencies, and to include two reports from similar projects
completed by the team to be assigned to this project.
2. Although the RFQ specified the criteria to be used in evaluating
quotations, it did not state the basis for source selection--that is,
whether a purchase order would be issued to the lowest-priced,
qualified firm or to the firm whose quotation represented the best
value to the government. The agency states that it made its selection
on a "best value" basis, however, and the protester appears to have
understood the RFQ as providing for selection on that basis. In this
regard, the protester does not argue that it was entitled to selection
as the lowest-priced qualified firm, but rather that its quotation
represented the best value to the government. Moreover, even assuming
that Northwest did understand the solicitation as providing for
selection of the lowest-priced, qualified firm, it was not prejudiced
by the agency's action since it was not the lowest-priced, qualified
firm on item No. 1; a third qualified firm, not a party to this
protest, quoted a price lower than either Northwest's or Clearwater's
for item No. 1.
3. In commenting on the agency report, the protester objects to the
agency's failure to suspend performance pending resolution of its
protest before our Office. Northwest contends that performance should
have been suspended because it filed its protest within 7 days after
learning that it had not received the award.
An agency is required to suspend contract performance only if it
receives notice of a protest from our Office within 10 calendar days
after the date of contract award, 31 U.S.C. sec. 3553(d)(3) (1994).
Here, the purchase order was issued on July 1, but Northwest did not
file its protest with our Office until July 14 (and the agency was not
notified of the protest until July 15). The protester explains that
it did not file its protest sooner because it was not notified of the
award until July 7. Delay by an agency in notifying a protester of an
award does not provide a basis for extending the time period for
obtaining a suspension of contract performance, however. See United
States Pollution Control, Inc., B-225372, Jan. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD para. 96
at 4 n.3.
4. The contemporaneous evaluation record consists of the worksheets
prepared by the two evaluators, addressing the strengths and
weaknesses of each proposal. In response to the protest, the
contracting officer prepared a statement discussing in more detail the
specific findings that led to the selection decision. While we give
greater weight to contemporaneous evidence, DynCorp, 71 Comp. Gen.
129, 134 n.12 (1991), 91-2 CPD para. 575 at 7 n.13, here we view the
agency's post-protest documentation as simply filling in previously
unrecorded details, rather than creating a new, post hoc rationale.
Moreover, this procurement was conducted using simplified acquisition
procedures, and the applicable regulatory provision, Federal
Acquisition Regulation sec. 13.106-2(d)(4), specifically provides that
documentation should be kept to a minimum in such procurements.
Accordingly, we will consider all the information provided by the
agency in reviewing the reasonableness of its decision.