BNUMBER:  B-278108 
DATE:  December 22, 1997
TITLE: Resource Management International, Inc., B-278108, December
22, 1997
**********************************************************************

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.
Matter of:Resource Management International, Inc.

File:     B-278108

Date:December 22, 1997

Catherine E. Pollack, Esq., James J. McCullough, Esq., Joel R. 
Feidelman, Esq., and
Douglas R.M. King, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for 
the protester.
David R. Johnson, Esq., and James C. Dougherty, Esq., Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher, for Hagler Bailly Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Gary M. Winter, Esq., United States Agency for International 
Development, for the agency.
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest alleging that the agency improperly awarded a contract to the 
awardee on the basis of its lower cost, lower technically rated 
proposal where the RFP emphasized that technical factors were 
significantly more important than cost is denied where the contracting 
officer reasonably determined that the protester's and the awardee's 
proposals were essentially technically equal and that the slight 
technical advantage represented by the protester's proposal did not 
merit the expenditure of roughly $[deleted] in additional funds that 
it would cost to have the protester perform the work. 

DECISION

Resource Management International, Inc. (RMI) protests the United 
States Agency for International Development's (USAID) award of a 
contract for providing technical assistance to the Government of the 
Philippines to Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. (HBS) pursuant to request 
for proposals (RFP) No. 492-97-323.  The protester contends that, in 
deciding to award the contract to HBS on the basis of its lower priced 
proposal, the contracting officer placed undue emphasis on cost and 
ignored the RFP's stated evaluation criteria, which emphasized 
technical superiority and quality of proposed personnel.

We deny the protest.

Issued on March 19, 1997, the RFP solicited proposals for providing 
technical assistance to the Government of the Philippines concerning 
mitigation of greenhouse gases.  Among other things, the contractor 
will provide technical and training assistance to:  (1) several 
government agencies involved in energy planning, policy development, 
regulation and program implementation; (2) private utilities involved 
in developing cleaner fuel generation facilities or improving the 
efficiency of existing generation, transmission and distribution 
systems; and (3) industrial and commercial sectors related to using 
energy more efficiently.  The RFP contemplated award of a 40-month, 
level-of-effort contract, and stated that the contractor would be paid 
on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis.  

The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose 
proposal offered the best value to the government after consideration 
of both technical factors and cost.  The RFP stated that technical 
proposals would be evaluated and point-scored by a technical 
evaluation committee (TEC) and listed the evaluation criteria and the 
maximum number of evaluation points available for each as follows:  
(1) team organizations, qualifications and experience (50 points); (2) 
past performance and commitment to deliver quality people (35 points); 
and (3) partnering for best use of resources (5 points).  The RFP also 
stated that cost would be given a point score and provided a formula 
whereby the lowest-cost proposal would receive the maximum of 10 
points, while other proposals would receive fewer points based upon 
comparison of their proposed costs with the lowest proposed cost.  The 
RFP cautioned that the government would not be obligated to award the 
contract to either the offeror proposing the lowest cost or the 
offeror whose proposal garnered the highest evaluation score.  The RFP 
also advised that "[t]he formula set forth above will be used by the 
Contracting Officer as a guide in determining which proposals will be 
most advantageous to the Government." 

Six offers were received by the May 7, 1997, closing date.  After 
evaluation of technical and cost proposals, four offers were 
determined to be in the competitive range, and written and oral 
discussions were held with each competitive-range offeror.  Offerors 
were allowed to clarify and/or revise proposals and submitted best and 
final offers (BAFO).  The TEC members individually reviewed technical 
BAFOs and then met as a group to discuss their findings and to reach a 
consensus.  Based solely upon its evaluation of technical proposals, 
the TEC recommended that RMI be awarded the contract.  The contracting 
officer assigned each BAFO cost points according to the formula set 
out in the RFP.  

The final ranking of offers, based upon technical and cost scores 
combined, was:

Offeror      Proposed CostCost Score   Technical ScoreTotal Score

RMI          [deleted]     [deleted]   [deleted]    [deleted]

HBS            [deleted]    [deleted][1][deleted]   [deleted]

Offeror C    [deleted]     [deleted]   [deleted]    [deleted]

Offeror D    [deleted]     [deleted]   [deleted]    [deleted] 
As explained in detail below, the contracting officer performed a best 
value analysis, reviewing the major cost elements of RMI's and HBS' 
proposals, and comparing both offerors' proposed costs to the agency's 
in-house cost estimate.  Notwithstanding the TEC's recommendation that 
the contract be awarded to RMI, and acknowledging that cost was worth 
only 10 points out of the 100 points available under the RFP's 
evaluation scheme, the contracting officer determined that the 
proposals of RMI and HBS "could be considered technically equal" and 
awarded the contract to HBS.  After a debriefing, RMI filed this 
protest.

The protester contends that the award to HBS was contrary to the RFP's 
stated basis for evaluation and award.  Specifically, RMI contends 
that the contracting officer improperly awarded the contract to the 
firm that submitted the lower cost, technically acceptable offer, 
instead of giving more weight to the technical factors as required by 
the RFP's evaluation scheme.  Citing Tulane Univ., B-259912, Apr. 21, 
1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  210, as support, RMI argues that because the RFP's 
evaluation formula required the award of evaluation points for both 
technical merit and cost, the contracting officer should not have 
performed any further analysis and was required to award the contract 
to RMI because its proposal had received the greatest number of 
technical and cost points combined.

The protester misconstrues our Tulane University decision.  In that 
case, at 4, we held that, since the RFP included a cost/technical 
tradeoff formula for determining the best value to the government that 
accounted for both technical factors and cost, the agency properly 
could award the contract to the offeror whose proposal had obtained 
the highest combined technical/cost score without performing any 
additional cost/technical tradeoff analysis to justify its selection.  
However, we did not hold, as the protester argues, that source 
selection officials are required to mechanically award contracts to 
the offeror whose proposal receives the highest number of points in 
any case where the solicitation's evaluation formula accords points 
for both cost and technical factors.  We also did not hold that the 
inclusion of such an evaluation formula in the solicitation prohibits 
the source selection official from examining the evaluation materials 
and the evaluation panel's recommendation or from performing any 
additional cost/technical tradeoff analysis before selecting the 
winning offer.  Furthermore, this RFP specifically advised that AID 
was not obligated to award to the offeror proposing the lowest cost or 
the offeror who obtained the highest evaluation score.  The RFP also 
stated that the formula would be used as a guide for the contracting 
officer.  Thus, in contrast to the RFP at issue in the Tulane 
University decision, this RFP clearly notified offerors that the award 
would not be based solely on the formula.

Source selection officials are vested with a very broad degree of 
discretion to determine the manner and extent to which they will make 
use of evaluation results, and they are not bound by the 
recommendations made by evaluation panels or other advisory groups.  
Grey Adver., Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111, 1120 (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  325 at 
11; PRC, Inc., B-274698.2, B-274698.3, Jan. 23, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  115 
at 7.  In a negotiated procurement with a best value evaluation plan, 
point scores are useful as guides but do not mandate automatic 
selection of a particular proposal.  PRC, Inc., supra, at 12.  Whether 
a given point spread between two competing proposals indicates a 
significant superiority of one proposal over another depends upon the 
facts and circumstances of each procurement and is primarily a matter 
within the discretion of the procuring agency.  Grey Adver., Inc., 55 
Comp. Gen. 1111, 1118-1119, (1976) 76-1 CPD  para.  325 at 9-10.  The 
question of whether a difference in point scores is significant is for 
determination on the basis of both what that difference might mean in 
terms of performance and what it would cost the government to take 
advantage of it.  Id.  Where selection officials reasonably regard 
proposals as being essentially equal technically, cost can become the 
determining factor in making award notwithstanding that the evaluation 
criteria assigned cost less importance than technical factors.  The 
Parks Co., B-249473, Nov. 17, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  354 at 4.  Moreover, an 
agency may properly award to a lower rated, lower cost offeror, even 
if cost is the least important evaluation factor, if it reasonably 
determines that award to the higher cost offeror is not justified 
given the level of technical competence available at the lower cost.  
PRC, Inc., supra, at 12.  The record shows that the contracting 
officer's decision to award the contract to HBS was both reasonable 
and consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme.[2]  

RMI's BAFO received a technical score of [deleted] points while HBS' 
received [deleted] points--a difference of [deleted] technical points 
in RMI's favor (see page 3 above).  RMI's proposed price (i.e., 
proposed costs plus fee) was $[deleted] while HBS' proposed price was 
only $[deleted].  Thus, it would cost USAID approximately $[deleted] 
more to have RMI, instead of HBS, perform the work.  The record shows 
that the contracting officer was aware of the technical and cost 
differences and she knew that the TEC preferred RMI's BAFO and 
recommended award to RMI.  Tr. at 19.   However, based upon her review 
of the BAFO scoring, the contracting officer believed that HBS' 
proposal was "running very close behind" RMI's and, based upon her 
review of the earlier evaluation record, the contracting officer 
believed that RMI's and HBS' proposals were basically "nip-and-tuck 
technically" throughout the procurement.  Tr. at 19 and 30.  The 
contracting officer testified that, in accord with the RFP's express 
provisions, she viewed the evaluation scores as mere "guides" for her 
use in determining which proposal was most advantageous to the 
government, and the TEC's recommendation as just that--a 
recommendation to be considered in making the selection decision.  Tr. 
at 26 and 84.  She also testified that, in making her best value 
determination, she gathered as much information as she could, reviewed 
relevant Comptroller General decisions, consulted with a legal 
adviser, indirectly communicated with the TEC (through the TEC 
chairman and a contract specialist), and "wrestled over this problem 
of lower price, lower technical score, for close to a week."  Tr. at 
16-17, 24-29.

After reviewing the evaluation materials, including the TEC's 
recommendation, the contracting officer considered a number of factors 
before deciding that the proposals of RMI and HBS "could be considered 
technically equal" and that RMI's proposal's slight technical 
advantage "did not appear to merit paying the cost premium."[3]  Tr. 
at 31.  Among other things, the contracting officer carefully examined 
RMI's [deleted]-point technical advantage over HBS and made the 
following observations:

     1.  The contracting officer noted that RMI's overall technical 
advantage was due exclusively to its higher rating on the most 
important evaluation factor ("team organizations, qualifications and 
experience"), but that HBS' proposal received slightly higher ratings 
than RMI's on the second and third most important evaluation factors 
("past performance and commitment to deliver quality people" and 
"partnering for best use of resources").  Tr. at 44-45 and 56-58.  

     2.  The contracting officer testified that she was aware from her 
review of the evaluation record and discussions with her staff that 
RMI's key personnel (i.e., the proposed chief of party and deputy 
chief of party) had done a better job during oral discussions than had 
HBS' key personnel.[4]  Tr. at 23 and 45.  In this connection, the 
contracting officer testified that she considered the fact that HBS 
had changed some of its proposed key personnel during the course of 
the procurement and, therefore, since HBS' key personnel had not been 
associated with the proposal from the outset "maybe they weren't able 
to shine as much as somebody who might have been connected with the 
proposal from day one."  Tr. at 23.

     3.  The contracting officer testified that RMI's proposed deputy 
chief of party had worked with at least one and possibly other TEC 
members previously.  While she did not discount the higher ratings 
RMI's proposal received in the evaluation of its key personnel's 
qualifications and experience, she did consider the fact that the 
evaluators might have scored RMI's proposal a little higher because 
they knew, or had worked with, RMI's deputy chief of party before.  
Tr. at 23, 66-67.  

     4.  The contracting officer noted that the TEC was not completely 
satisfied with RMI's proposed personnel.  In particular, the TEC 
criticized RMI's choice for the [deleted] and stated that it would 
have welcomed a different candidate; the TEC also recommended a 
performance review of this candidate after a year (if RMI were 
selected) and that he be replaced if his performance were found to be 
less than satisfactory.  Tr. at 24.

     5.  The contracting officer also examined the qualifications of 
HBS' proposed personnel and determined that their qualifications were 
also quite high.  Tr. at 78.

The contracting officer also reviewed the roughly $[deleted] 
difference between RMI's and HBS' proposed costs (see page 3 above) 
and observed that the bulk of the cost differential was due to the 
fact that RMI proposed to have [deleted].  The contracting officer 
noted that this resulted in approximately $[deleted] of indirect 
costs, for such items as general and administrative expenses, 
additional indirect costs, and additional fees, being included in 
RMI's total price.  The contracting officer determined that such 
indirect costs would not directly benefit the Government of the 
Philippines in terms of a greater level of effort.  Tr. at 21 and 38. 
Based upon the above analysis, the contracting officer determined that 
RMI's proposal's slightly higher technical rating did not merit the 
expenditure of approximately $[deleted] in additional funds.  The 
contracting officer also noted that this was a level-of-effort 
contract in which the government was basically purchasing "bodies and 
person-months" of work and that both offerors were offering basically 
the same thing (Tr. at 20), the RFP did not seek and the proposals did 
not include any unique or innovative approaches to performing the 
work, and the TEC unanimously agreed throughout the procurement that 
HBS could provide the skills needed under the contract.  Finally, even 
though there was no requirement that she do so, the contracting 
officer, using the TEC chairman and a contract specialist as 
intermediaries, contacted the TEC members and informed them that it 
would cost roughly $[deleted] more to award the contract to RMI as the 
TEC had recommended and gave them each an opportunity to provide any 
justification, in addition to the ratings and preferences stated in 
the evaluation documents, for paying that cost premium.[5]  Tr. at 
24-27.  The record shows that the TEC members, apparently because they 
viewed their role as limited to the technical evaluation, did not 
provide any such justification.

In view of the very thorough deliberative process described above, we 
think that the contracting officer reasonably determined that HBS' 
proposal was the most advantageous to the government.  Accordingly, 
even though the RFP emphasized the importance of technical factors 
over cost, the award to HBS on the basis of its lower cost proposal 
was reasonable and supported by the record.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Our calculations show that this figure should actually be 
                          [deleted]; however, the difference is de 
                          minimis and had no effect on the outcome of 
                          the competition or our resolution of the 
                          protest.

2. The record included the protester's and the intervenor's legal 
briefs; the agency report and legal briefs; the evaluation documents; 
the TEC's consensus memorandum summarizing its evaluation of each 
offer and recommending award to RMI; declarations from the TEC 
chairman, each TEC member, and a contract specialist; and the 
contracting officer's memorandum of negotiation which, among other 
things, provided the rationale for the selection of HBS.  We also 
convened a hearing on November 14, 1997, during which the contracting 
officer testified concerning her decision to award the contract to HBS 
notwithstanding the TEC's recommendation to award to RMI; transcript 
(Tr.) citations refer to the transcript of that hearing.

3. The protester focuses on the apparent inconsistency between the 
contracting officer's reference to the proposals being essentially 
technically equal and her recognition of the cost/technical tradeoff 
required for the source selection.  In our view, there is no real 
inconsistency here.  The contracting officer concluded (based on the 
analysis summarized below) that, while the protester's proposal was 
rated higher, the difference between the two proposals was slight and 
did not justify paying the cost premium associated with RMI's 
proposal.

4. Each offeror's proposed chief of party and deputy chief of party 
were interviewed by the TEC during oral discussions.  HBS replaced its 
originally proposed chief of party just days before the interview.

5. Before this the TEC was not aware of proposed costs or of the 
magnitude of the cost differential.  Tr. at 25