BNUMBER:  B-278254 
DATE:  January 12, 1998
TITLE: Research Triangle Institute, B-278254, January 12, 1998
**********************************************************************

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:Research Triangle Institute

File:     B-278254

Date:January 12, 1998

Philip J. Davis, Esq., and Mark H. Neblett, Esq., Wiley, Rein & 
Fielding, for the protester.
Robert A. Mangrum, Esq., Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Jason I. 
Hewitt, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for Chemonics International, Inc., an 
intervenor.
Rumu Sarkar, Esq., United States Agency for International Development, 
for the agency.
John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

The selection of a lower-rated, lower-cost offer for award rather than 
a higher-rated, higher-cost offer in a best value procurement in which 
technical merit was stated to be more important than cost was not 
improper where the agency reasonably concluded that the higher-rated 
offer, although technically superior to the lower-rated offer, was not 
worth the additional cost. 

DECISION

Research Triangle Institute (RTI) protests the award of a contract to 
Chemonics International, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
97-001, issued by the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID).  RTI contends that, in deciding to award the 
contract to Chemonics, the contracting officer disregarded the 
proposal evaluation record and ignored the RFP's stated evaluation 
criteria which emphasized technical superiority over cost.  

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP solicited proposals to provide technical assistance for the 
USAID Local Government Partnership (LGP) Program in Poland.  The 
contractor is to support the efforts of Polish local governments to be 
more effective, responsive, and accountable on a sustainable basis.  
This is a follow-on contract to USAID's technical assistance pilot LGP 
program in Poland; RTI is a member of the incumbent consortium of 
firms currently performing the pilot program.  The RFP contemplated 
award of a 40-month, level-of-effort contract, and stated that the 
contractor would be paid on a cost-plus-award-fee basis.

The RFP stated that technical proposals would be scored by a technical 
evaluation committee (TEC) using the following technical evaluation 
criteria and maximum evaluation points:

1.  Relevance of offeror's past performance in implementing similar 
projects and quality of performance under those contracts (20 points);

2.  Degree to which the offeror's proposal reflects a clear 
understanding of the project's concepts and overall strategic 
objective, including the role and importance of performance monitoring 
(20 points);
 
3.  Offeror's demonstration of full understanding of the technical 
issues involved in this procurement (15 points);

4.  Viability of offeror's proposal for institutionalizing the LGP 
program within Polish institutions and professions for sustainability 
of results (20 points); 

5.  Qualifications of proposed personnel (15 points); 

6.  Offeror's proposal for a timely and effective management approach 
for implementing this program within the 3.5 year period of the 
project and the budget range (10 points).  

The RFP also provided that cost proposals would be scored using the 
following cost factors and points:  (1) Total cost (10 points), (2) 
Reasonableness of cost (5 points), and (3) Proposal award fee (5 
points).

The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose 
proposal, conforming to the solicitation, was most advantageous to the 
government, considering the above technical and cost factors.  It also 
stated 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."

Five proposals were submitted.  The TEC evaluated and scored the 
technical proposals.  The contracting officer determined that the 
proposals of RTI, Chemonics, and a third offeror were in the 
competitive range.  Discussions were conducted and the technical 
proposals were rescored.  The technical scores and proposed costs of 
the three competitive range proposals were as follows:

   Offeror         Technical scoreProposed cost

   RTI             82.75         $27,999,936

   Chemonics       69            $27,842,929

   Third offeror   68.5          $27,996,808
The agency requested three rounds of best and final offers (BAFO).  
The second and third rounds were necessitated by errors in RTI's cost 
proposal.  After the first BAFOs--and after the TEC had recommended 
award to RTI--the contracting officer discovered RTI had not complied 
with a requirement for a 40-month budget; RTI had proposed only 39 
months.  

In the second BAFOs, RTI's proposed cost remained the same; Chemonics 
reduced its cost by $330,211.  Although RTI's second BAFO included the 
required 40-month budget, the firm made another error in its cost 
proposal.  The contract includes a $3 million grant program and the 
RFP required the cost of administering that program to be budgeted 
separately.  RTI failed to comply with this provision, budgeting 
$360,000 out of the $3 million in grant resources for the cost of 
administering the grant program.  The contracting officer requested 
another round of BAFOs, again advising RTI to revise its cost proposal 
to comply with the RFP.  

In its third and final BAFO, RTI complied with the requirements of the 
grant program.  RTI made other budget changes, including 
reapportioning training costs between RTI and its subcontractors, and 
reducing materials and communications costs.  RTI also increased the 
overall cost of its proposal slightly to $28,000,000, the highest of 
the three competitive range proposals.  Chemonics, in its third BAFO, 
reduced its overall cost by $1,648,789, by reducing its own and its 
subcontractors' fees and establishing ceilings on its overhead costs 
below the current rates.  Thus, after the third round of BAFOs, the 
total cost difference between the RTI and Chemonics proposals was $2.3 
million.  

After the third round of BAFOs, the contracting officer requested that 
the chair of the TEC provide an analysis of whether an award to RTI at 
a cost premium could be justified.  In a memorandum to the contracting 
officer, the TEC chair explained that she discussed the $2.3 million 
cost difference with two members of the TEC and stated that the 
difference in technical ratings between the RTI and Chemonics 
proposals did not justify the additional cost of an award to RTI.  The 
memorandum recommended award to Chemonics.  

The contracting officer then performed a cost analysis according to 
the formula in the RFP.  Under the total cost factor, USAID awarded 5 
of the 10 available points to each of the proposals because they were 
within the government's estimate, and awarded an additional 5 points 
to the Chemonics proposal since it achieved a lower total cost.  Under 
the cost reasonableness factor, the contracting officer awarded 3 of 
the 5 available points to the RTI proposal due to concerns that the 
firm's total cost did not change in spite of the adjustments in its 
cost proposal during discussions and due to the lack of specific 
measures in the proposal to provide cost savings.  The contracting 
officer awarded Chemonics 4 points under the cost reasonableness 
factor based on a concern that Chemonics's proposed training and 
communications costs may be low.  Under the award fee factor, the 
contracting officer noted that RTI's proposal included the highest 
award fee of the three proposals, while the Chemonics award fee was 
the lowest, and awarded 5 points to the Chemonics proposal and 3 
points to the RTI proposal.[1]  The cost points assigned to the three 
competitive range proposals, along with the technical scores and total 
scores assigned to each, were as follows:

                Total costCost 
                      reason.Award feeCost scoreTech. scoreTotal score

        RTI       5   3      3      11     82.75 93.75

        Chem.   10    4      5      19     69    88

        Third offeror53      4      12     68    80
In an award decision memorandum, the contracting officer noted that, 
while RTI had the highest-ranked technical proposal, its cost was 
approximately $2.3 million greater than the cost of the Chemonics 
proposal.  The contracting officer also stated that the Chemonics 
proposal provided an additional level of effort of approximately 195 
person months of local professional staff and a fourth regional 
office, although the contracting officer stated that "these may or may 
not be technically significant but [they do] indicate further cost 
value."  The contracting officer also stated that the cost difference 
was valid, noting that "[a]pproximately $1.6 million of the difference 
is strictly due to [Chemonics's] reduced fee and indirect cost rate 
ceilings and thus represents a clear cost difference."  The memorandum 
stated that, based on the significant cost difference, a 
cost/technical trade-off review was performed to determine if RTI's 
higher technical score provided an advantage that justified RTI's 
higher cost.  The memorandum notes that the $2.3 million difference 
was used in the trade-off decision, "although we believe that the 
determination is equally valid for $1.6 million."

The contracting officer noted that RTI's technical proposal was 
stronger primarily in the areas of understanding the project's 
concepts and overall strategic objectives and understanding the 
technical issues involved, although the contracting officer noted that 
these strengths "might be expected since [RTI is] one of the 
organizations participating in the implementation of the pilot [LGP 
program]."  In comparison, the contracting officer noted that 
"Chemonics demonstrated the institutional capacity to implement the 
program and can adequately perform the services called for in the 
RFP."  According to the contracting officer:

     While RTI had more depth of understanding, neither RTI not 
     Chemonics presented perfect technical proposals and while RTI's 
     is clearly stronger, Chemonics' proposal in these areas has been 
     determined by the TEC to be more than technically adequate to 
     meet the Government's requirements.

The contracting officer also noted there were several factors which 
lessened the impact of the lower technical ranking of the Chemonics 
proposal.  The contracting officer noted that Chemonics has a clearly 
superior core management team.  For example, the contracting officer 
noted that the background, management, and leadership skills of 
Chemonics's chief of party exceed those of RTI's chief of party.  The 
contracting officer also noted that Chemonics's proposal was strong on 
rapid mobilization and start-up, which will assist the firm in 
commencing implementation in a timely manner and getting up to speed 
more quickly on technical issues and understanding of the project's 
concept and overall strategic objective.  

In addition, the contracting officer noted that Chemonics will have 
the opportunity to gain additional first-hand information and 
understanding of the technical issues, concepts, and strategic 
objectives of the program early in the contract.  According to the 
award decision memorandum, USAID will turn over to the new contract 
team all relevant materials and contact information from the pilot 
program, and the statement of work calls for a several month period of 
overlap with the implementor of the pilot program during the 
transition period.  In the award decision memorandum, the contracting 
officer concluded that the additional $2.3 million of cost of the RTI 
proposal was neither necessary nor warranted and that "the Contracting 
Officer can not, in good conscience, justify the cost premium involved 
in gaining the technical advantages of the RTI proposal.  The 
Chemonics proposal is most advantageous to the Government."

PROTEST ALLEGATIONS

RTI argues that USAID was so enamored with Chemonics's unexpected 
reduction in cost in its third BAFO that it decided to award to 
Chemonics based on its low cost, low technical offer.  According to 
RTI, in order to reach this desired result, the agency essentially 
dismissed 4 months of proposal evaluation and study by the TEC, during 
which RTI outscored Chemonics 83 to 69 and scored higher on five of 
the six technical factors, including the four most highly valued 
factors.  RTI argues that the agency's "single-minded objective" of 
awarding to Chemonics based on its low cost can be seen in the 
contracting officer's "pro forma" cost/technical trade-off which, 
according to RTI, ignored or dismissed evidence in the record that 
conflicted with its analysis.  RTI also argues that at no point did 
USAID conduct any analysis of the value of the benefits the agency 
could enjoy from RTI's technically superior proposal.  RTI argues the 
award was unreasonable and inconsistent with the stated evaluation 
scheme, which provided that technical considerations were more 
important than cost by a ratio of 5 to 1.  According to RTI, it 
appears from the record that USAID deemed the various criteria within 
the technical factor to have equal weight and the technical and cost 
factors to also be equivalent.

RTI also argues that the trade-off decision sought to diminish RTI's 
technical superiority and elevate Chemonics's technical proposal, in 
spite of its deficiencies, as well as to expand the cost difference 
between the proposals.  According to RTI, USAID's trade-off could do 
this only by ignoring and contradicting the evaluation of the 
proposals, by diminishing the weights of the more important technical 
subfactors on which RTI excelled, and by according determinative 
weight to technical subfactors with relatively low value on which 
Chemonics scored well.  Finally, RTI argues that USAID's cost 
evaluation was deficient for questioning RTI's proposed cost and 
wrongfully deducting points from RTI's cost score.  

ANALYSIS

Notwithstanding a solicitation's emphasis on technical merit, an 
agency may properly award a contract to a lower-cost, lower 
technically scored offeror if it decides that the cost premium 
involved in awarding to a higher-rated, higher-cost offeror is not 
justified, given the acceptable level of technical competence 
available at the lower cost.  Dayton T. Brown, Inc., B-229664, Mar. 
30, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  321 at 4.  The determining factor is not the 
difference in technical merit, per se, but the contracting agency's 
judgment concerning the significance of that difference.  Id. at 4-5.  
In this regard, evaluation scores are merely guides for the source 
selection authority, who must use his or her judgment to determine 
what the technical difference between competing proposals might mean 
to contract performance, and who must consider what it would cost to 
take advantage of it.  Grey Advertising, Inc, 55 Comp. Gen. 1111, 
1118-19 (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  325 at 9-10.  In making such 
determinations, the source selection authority has broad discretion, 
and the extent to which technical merit may be sacrificed for cost, or 
vice versa, is limited only by the requirement that the trade-off 
decision be reasonable in light of the established evaluation and 
source selection criteria.  Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Inc., 
B-261316.4, Nov. 9, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  248 at 13-14.  Where, as here, 
cost is secondary to technical considerations, selection of a 
lower-priced, lower-rated proposal over a higher-rated proposal 
requires an adequate justification, i.e., one showing that the agency 
reasonably concluded that the higher technical score did not reflect 
actual technical superiority, see Dayton T. Brown, Inc., supra, at 
5-6, or that the higher-rated proposal's technical superiority was not 
worth the cost premium.  See Wyle Labs., Inc.; Latecoere Int'l, Inc., 
69 Comp. Gen. 648, 658-59 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para.  107 at 16.

In this case, while the contracting officer acknowledged that RTI's 
proposal was technically superior, he determined that the technical 
superiority was not worth the cost premium.  We conclude that the 
award decision was reasonable and in accordance with the RFP 
evaluation criteria.

First, we reject RTI's contention that, as a result of Chemonics's 
substantially reduced cost in its final BAFO, the agency disregarded 
or dismissed the earlier evaluation record, which had demonstrated the 
superiority of RTI's proposal.  As RTI notes, based on the TEC 
evaluation, its proposal outscored the Chemonics proposal 83 to 69 
points and scored higher on five of the six technical factors, 
including the four most highly valued factors.  Nonetheless, RTI's 
proposal was far from perfect--having achieved a score of only 83 out 
of a possible 100 technical points.  The evaluation record prior to 
the final Chemonics cost reduction shows the evaluators' concerns with 
a number of weaknesses in RTI's proposal.  For example, in a 
memorandum prepared before the second BAFOs, the TEC chair stated 
that, while RTI's proposal was clearly superior to the other 
proposals, "the [TEC] found fault with certain aspects of [RTI's] 
technical approach, flexibility, and personnel choices . . . ."

In addition, the record shows that prior to the final Chemonics cost 
reduction the contracting officer questioned whether there was as 
significant a difference between the RTI and Chemonics technical 
proposals as was reflected in the TEC scoring.  In another 
memorandum--prepared before the second BAFOs--the contracting officer 
stated he "was not fully convinced that the scoring reflected the 
technical difference - feeling that Chemonics, in such areas as past 
performance, personnel and management should have been given somewhat 
higher scores."  Thus, contrary to RTI's suggestion, the agency's view 
of the offerors' proposals did not take a "drastic turn" after 
Chemonics reduced its price. 

Second, we find no merit to RTI's argument that nothing in the record 
suggests that USAID attempted to determine the value of the specific 
benefits offered by RTI's technically superior proposal or to explain 
why its superiority on the most heavily weighted evaluation factors 
was not worth the additional cost.  Specifically, RTI argues that 
neither a TEC memorandum recommending award to Chemonics nor the award 
decision addressed the value of RTI's technical superiority or 
discussed its worth to the program.  According to RTI, rather than 
addressing the value of RTI's technical strengths, the award decision 
merely focused on the "adequacy" of the Chemonics proposal and 
mentioned that firm's higher score on its core management team--an 
issue that was encompassed within the personnel qualifications 
technical subfactor, the fifth criterion in importance, worth only 15 
out of 100 points.

In our view, the record establishes that the contracting officer and 
other agency officials made the effort to determine the value of the 
benefits of RTI's proposal in relation to the cost of that proposal 
and to explain why, in their view,  the superiority of RTI's proposal 
was not worth the additional cost associated with that proposal.  In 
order to address these questions, after the three rounds of BAFOs, the 
contracting officer asked another agency official to review the RTI 
and Chemonics proposals for realism and reasonableness and asked the 
chair of the TEC to provide a memorandum on whether she felt the 
higher technically rated proposal justified the higher cost.  After 
receiving the input of those officials, the contracting officer noted 
that RTI's proposal was the highest ranked technically and was 
stronger primarily in the areas of understanding the project's 
concepts and overall strategic objectives and understanding the 
technical issues involved.  The contracting officer discounted these 
strengths, however, stating that they "might be expected since [RTI 
is] one of the organizations participating in the implementation of 
the pilot [LGP program]."

Although the contracting officer never assigned a specific dollar 
value to RTI's superiority or otherwise attempted to quantify the 
advantages of RTI's proposal, there is no requirement that an agency 
do so.  Southwest Marine, Inc.; American Sys. Eng'g Corp., B-265865.3, 
B-265865.4, Jan. 23, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  56 at 19.  Rather, the 
contracting officer need only determine, as he did here, that the 
additional technical benefit of RTI's proposal was not worth the 
additional cost of that proposal.  In this respect, the contracting 
officer concluded that the additional $2.3 million of cost of the RTI 
proposal was neither necessary nor warranted and that "the Contracting 
Officer can not, in good conscience, justify the cost premium involved 
in gaining the technical advantages of the RTI proposal.  The 
Chemonics proposal is most advantageous to the Government."  Contrary 
to RTI's contention that USAID never attempted to determine the value 
of the specific benefits offered by RTI's technically superior 
proposal, we conclude that the record shows exactly that effort by the 
contracting officer.

Third, the record does not support RTI's contention that the award 
decision was inconsistent with the weights assigned to the various 
technical evaluation factors or with the greater weight assigned by 
the RFP to technical merit over cost.  The record shows that the 
contracting officer simply conducted his own examination into whether 
the technical difference between the RTI and Chemonics proposals were 
differences that would have an impact on performance of the contract 
and would justify the additional cost.  The contracting officer's 
disagreement with the TEC concerning the overall strength of the two 
proposals or the merits of the proposals under certain of the 
evaluation factors does not indicate that he disregarded the RFP 
evaluation scheme.

RTI nonetheless argues that USAID's trade-off ignored and contradicted 
the TEC's evaluation of the proposals, by diminishing the weights of 
the more important technical subfactors on which RTI excelled, and by 
according determinative weight to technical subfactors with relatively 
low value on which Chemonics scored well.  According to RTI, the 
contracting officer's trade-off decision sought to diminish RTI's 
technical superiority and to elevate the Chemonics technical proposal, 
in spite of its deficiencies, as well as to expand the cost difference 
between the proposals.  RTI challenges numerous aspects of the 
selection decision.  We have considered all of these challenges and 
conclude that the contracting officer did not ignore the evaluation 
record and, to the extent that the contracting officer took exception 
to that record, the record provides support for his decision to do so.  
In this respect, source selection officials are not bound by the 
recommendations or evaluation judgments of lower-level evaluators, 
even though the working-level evaluators may normally be expected to 
have the technical expertise required for such evaluations.  Loral 
Aeronutronic, B-259857.2, B-259858.2, July 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  213 at 
8.  We address below a number of illustrative examples of RTI's 
arguments.

For example, RTI challenges the contracting officer's suggestion that 
RTI's technical superiority was due to its work on the pilot project.  
As explained above, in his award decision, the contracting officer 
noted that RTI's technical proposal was stronger than the Chemonics 
proposal primarily in the areas of understanding of the project's 
concepts and overall strategic objectives and understanding of the 
technical issues involved.  The contracting officer noted, however, 
that these strengths "might be expected since [RTI is] one of the 
organizations participating in the implementation of the pilot [LGP 
program]." 

RTI disputes the significance of its experience on the pilot project.  
First, RTI notes that it has not been a prime contractor on the 
project; it is only a subcontractor.  In fact, notes RTI, one of the 
subcontractors proposed by Chemonics under this solicitation also is a 
subcontractor on the pilot project.  Thus, according to the protester, 
any advantage enjoyed by RTI as a result of its "incumbency," is 
shared by the Chemonics team.  In addition, RTI argues that USAID 
should not be permitted to dismiss RTI's technical advantage as simply 
a benefit of incumbency.  According to RTI, citing our decision 
PharmChem Labs., Inc., B-244385, Oct. 8, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  317 at 5, 
the record here lacks a showing in the contemporaneous evaluation 
record "that [the protester's] superiority was illusory or so 
insignificant that it could be offset" by the lower-cost offer. 

We disagree.  As USAID explains, Chemonics itself was not involved in 
the pilot project and, as RTI noted in its protest, RTI is a member of 
the incumbent consortium of firms currently performing the pilot 
program in Poland.[2]  The contracting officer's view, as stated in 
the award decision document, was that RTI's understanding of the 
project, as reflected in its proposal, was enhanced by its work on the 
pilot.  We have no basis to disagree with that view.  Source selection 
officials in appropriate circumstances properly may conclude that a 
numerical scoring advantage based primarily on incumbency does not 
indicate an actual technical superiority that would warrant a higher 
cost.  See Computer Tech. Servs., Inc., B-271435, June 20, 1996, 96-1 
CPD  para.  283 at 6.  In addition, although the contracting officer never 
determined that the technical superiority of RTI's proposal was 
"illusory," he did decide, as explained above,  that it was not worth 
the additional cost.  

RTI also argues that USAID unreasonably attempted to lessen the impact 
of Chemonics's lower technical rating and that those attempts have 
failed.  For example, RTI notes that the selection decision cites 
Chemonics's strength on the "core management team" as a factor that 
lessens the disparity in the technical scores.  RTI argues, however, 
that Chemonics's core management team was fully considered and 
evaluated in the proposal scoring and, according to the protester, 
Chemonics's strength in this area should not result in it receiving 
additional credit in the trade-off.  RTI argues, moreover, that 
Chemonics's purported strength is illusory.  According to RTI, the 
record shows that Chemonics's past performance is characterized by 
regular failure to deliver the team it proposes.  RTI notes that the 
TEC recognized this failure and alerted the contracting officer as 
follows:

     References on past and current projects reported that Chemonics 
     has underbid on several proposals, requiring post-contract award 
     changes.   In the majority of cases checked by the committee, 
     there were problems with staffing--either the original team that 
     was bid was not delivered and/or key staff had to be replaced.  
     In some instances there was 100% turnover of expatriate staff 
     from proposed staff to the final implementation team.  Given that 
     the committee felt that one of Chemonics' strongest points was 
     the core management team, their poor track record of uncertain 
     staffing was particularly troublesome.

RTI notes that the contracting officer's award decision memorandum 
does not acknowledge this documented failure on Chemonics's part to 
live up to its proposal representations.  According to RTI, 
Chemonics's "particularly troublesome" track record of "uncertain 
staffing" played no role in the agency's trade-off analysis.

In our view, the contracting officer simply determined that 
Chemonics's lower technical score was not an accurate reflection of 
the quality of performance that could be expected from that firm.  We 
conclude that the contracting officer could reasonably make that 
determination based on the record.  First, notwithstanding RTI's 
contention that Chemonics was given additional credit in the trade-off 
for its core management team, the record shows that this was not the 
case.  Rather, the contracting officer simply stated his view that 
Chemonics's superior management team would likely overcome weaknesses 
in other aspects of its proposal.  

Second, although RTI argues that the contracting officer's award 
decision memorandum did not acknowledge Chemonics's documented failure 
to regularly deliver the team it proposes, as USAID points out, this 
matter was raised with Chemonics in discussions and the firm provided 
an explanation which the agency accepted.  Specifically, Chemonics was 
asked about reports that the firm underbid on several proposals and 
that post-award contract changes were required to replace staff 
members that were not delivered or otherwise had to be replaced.  In 
its response to this discussion question, Chemonics acknowledged the 
agency's concerns and explained the circumstances that had led to the 
replacement of personnel on a number of projects.  Chemonics also 
explained that, in order to allay the agency's concerns, it had 
maintained contact with and reconfirmed the availability of all key 
personnel on this project.  This response satisfied the agency's 
evaluators.  After the discussions related to this issue, the chair of 
the TEC prepared a memo which stated that "[t]he Chemonics proposal is 
clearly superior in its core management team."  In addition, in the 
award decision, the contracting officer considered Chemonics's core 
management team to be a strength and superior to RTI's core management 
team.  Thus, although RTI disagrees with the agency's view of the 
Chemonics management team, the record shows that the agency's concerns 
in this area were addressed and satisfied by Chemonics.

RTI also argues that the contracting officer is wrong to suggest in 
the award decision that Chemonics will be able to compensate for its 
low technical scores when it gains additional first-hand information 
and understanding of the technical issues, concepts, and strategic 
objectives of the program early in the contract.  As explained above, 
the award decision memorandum noted that USAID will turn over to the 
new contract team all relevant materials and contact information from 
the pilot program.  RTI argues that the evaluation and the selection 
decision should have been based on the content of the proposals, "not 
on expectations for the future."  In addition, according to RTI, 
giving Chemonics credit in the trade-off analysis for such factors as 
understanding of the technical issues, concepts, and strategic 
objectives effectively wrote those criteria out of the RFP evaluation 
scheme--at allegedly severe prejudice to RTI, which outscored 
Chemonics on those factors by 31.6 to 20.8 points.  RTI also argues 
that the contracting officer is simply wrong that information will be 
made available to the awardee that was not available earlier.  RTI 
states that the materials in question were made available under the 
RFP during the proposal process.  

We conclude that the contracting officer could reasonably conclude 
that RTI's technical superiority is mitigated to some degree by 
Chemonics's ability to get up to speed quickly because it will have 
the opportunity to gain first-hand information and understanding of 
the technical issues, concepts, and strategic objectives of the LGP 
program early in the contract.  Although RTI disparages the 
contracting officer's conclusion in this regard and argues that the 
evaluation and the selection decision should be based on the 
proposals, "not on expectations for the future," we see nothing 
unreasonable in agency officials reviewing proposals with a goal of 
deciding what sort of performance to expect from a particular firm if 
it is awarded a contract; this is precisely what the evaluators are 
expected to consider.

We also do not agree with RTI that the effect of giving Chemonics 
credit in the trade-off analysis for understanding of the technical 
issues, concepts, and strategic objectives was to write those criteria 
out of the RFP evaluation scheme.  The contracting officer was simply 
expressing his view that the Chemonics proposal may have been entitled 
to greater credit under these factors than it had been assigned in the 
evaluation.  Since, as explained above, source selection officials are 
not bound by the recommendations or evaluation judgments of 
lower-level evaluators, Loral Aeronutronic, supra, at 8, there was no 
impropriety in the contracting officer reaching a different (equally 
reasonable) view of Chemonics's proposal than the evaluators did.

Concerning RTI's contention that the contracting officer wrongly 
concluded that Chemonics will benefit under the contract from the 
availability of information on the pilot program since the materials 
in question were made available during the proposal process, the 
agency acknowledges that some documents were in fact made available to 
offerors under the RFP.  Nonetheless, the agency reports that 
additional materials will be made available to the awardee under the 
contract.  USAID notes that the RFP states that all relevant materials 
and contact information from the pilot program will be turned over to 
the contractor during a transition period and explains that some of 
these materials were still being generated under the pilot program 
while the procurement was taking place.  Based on this explanation, we 
think the contracting officer could reasonably conclude that Chemonics 
will have access to information that will allow it to gain additional 
first hand information and understanding of the technical issues, 
concepts, and strategic objectives of the LGP program early in the 
contract. 

Moreover, we think the contracting officer could reasonably conclude 
that Chemonics's access to documents from the pilot program during 
this procurement was not the same as having participated--as did 
RTI--under the pilot program.  As explained, we think the contracting 
officer reasonably observed that some of RTI's evaluated strengths 
were to be expected as a result of RTI's involvement in the pilot 
program.  We think it was also reasonable for the contracting officer 
to conclude that, once Chemonics has a similar exposure, it will have 
a similar depth of knowledge and, therefore, this difference between 
the two firms did not represent additional value to the extent that 
the technical scores reflected.[3]

RTI also challenges the suggestion in the award decision that the $2.3 
million cost difference between RTI and Chemonics may be greater 
because the Chemonics proposal provided an additional level of effort 
of approximately 195 person months of local professional staff and a 
fourth regional office.  RTI notes that the contracting officer in the 
award memorandum noted that "these may or may not be technically 
significant . . . ."  Moreover, RTI argues that there is evidence in 
the record that the additional personnel and regional office would not 
add value, since several members of the TEC identified Chemonics's 
extra staffing and regional office as weaknesses because they were 
expensive and not cost effective.  

These contentions are essentially irrelevant to the source selection 
decision.  As explained above, the contracting officer noted in the 
award decision that the difference in cost between the RTI and 
Chemonics proposals was approximately $2.3 million.  The contracting 
officer's point in referring to the additional level of effort in the 
Chemonics proposal was that Chemonics's actual cost advantage may be 
greater than $2.3 million.  The contracting officer stated, however, 
that the cost/technical trade-off was based on the difference of $2.3 
million.  Under the circumstances, the additional level of effort 
referred to by the contracting officer in the award decision had no 
significant impact on the trade-off decision.

RTI also challenges the cost evaluation, arguing that the contracting 
officer's concerns that resulted in a downgrading of RTI's cost 
proposal and the loss of points in the cost evaluation were 
unreasonable.  In awarding RTI's proposal only 5 points, the 
contracting officer noted that RTI's cost was at the top of the 
government estimate, as it had been throughout the competition.  The 
cost evaluation memorandum prepared by the contracting officer also 
stated that RTI's budget was "somewhat difficult to follow" and, "left 
the Contracting Officer with the feeling that there was some lack of 
realism here and the total cost may be more than $28 million."  
According to the cost evaluation memorandum, the reason for these 
concerns was that, although RTI had ultimately correctly increased the 
number of months covered by the budget from 39 to 40 and had increased 
the funds in the grant program, neither of these actions resulted in a 
significant increase in the estimated cost.  

RTI argues that, in deducting points from RTI's cost score, the agency 
overlooked the adjustments RTI made in its cost proposal to offset 
whatever cost increase may have been required by these changes.  
According to RTI, the factual record before the contracting officer 
was more than sufficient to rebut the contracting officer's "feeling" 
that there was a lack of realism in RTI's proposal.  As RTI notes, its 
final BAFO response indicated that the firm had revised a number of 
line items of its cost proposal in order to accommodate the change in 
grant administration costs.

RTI also argues that the deduction of points under the total cost 
factor was inconsistent with the agency's finding that RTI's costs 
were considered reasonable. In addition, RTI argues that the total 
cost factor scores were not based on any consideration of the 
magnitude of the difference in offeror prices.  According to RTI, it 
was unreasonable for the agency to award Chemonics 100 percent of the 
available points under the total cost factor for having the lowest 
cost and then to award RTI only 50 percent of the available points 
even though RTI's proposed cost was only 9 percent higher than that of 
Chemonics.  RTI argues that, if it had "received the additional four 
or five points commensurate with its price," the disparity in total 
points between the RTI and Chemonics proposals would have been greater 
and may have resulted in a different trade-off result.

These contentions do not call into question the propriety of the 
source selection decision.  The record reflects that most of the 
difference in the cost scores assigned to the two proposals was due to 
the difference in their scores on the total cost factor.  Essentially, 
that difference was due to the fact that RTI's proposal was the 
highest cost proposal in the competitive range, while the Chemonics 
proposal was the lowest.  RTI argues that it was unreasonable for the 
agency to award Chemonics 100 percent of the available points (10 
points) under the total cost factor for having the lowest cost and 
award RTI only 50 percent of the available points, even though RTI's 
proposed cost was only 9 percent higher than that of Chemonics.  RTI's 
arguments here amount to little more than a disagreement with the 
score assigned to its cost proposal and provide no basis for us to 
challenge those scores.[4]  See Medical Serv. Corp. Int'l, B-255205.2, 
Apr. 4, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  305 at 10-11. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. RTI's proposed award fee was approximately 5 percent, while 
Chemonics's award fee was approximately 2.5 percent.

2. RTI also stated in its protest that it "has been the prime 
contractor or major subcontractor on two other large USAID contracts 
providing technical assistance and training directly to local 
governments in Poland since 1992."

3. RTI also states that the contracting officer is simply wrong that 
there would be a several month period of overlap with the implementor 
of the pilot program.  RTI notes that the overlap with the implementor 
of the pilot program was deleted by an amendment to the RFP.  
Apparently, the contracting officer was mistaken in this respect.  
Nonetheless, we do not see how that mistake could make any difference 
in the award decision.  As we explained above, we think the 
contracting officer could reasonably conclude that Chemonics will be 
able to compensate for its lower technical scores due to its strong 
core management team and access to materials from the pilot.

4. In any event, it is clear that the contracting officer did not make 
the source selection decision based on a difference in points assigned 
to the cost proposals.  Rather, as explained above, the award decision 
reflects the contracting officer's consideration of the expected $2.3 
million cost difference between the two proposals in relation to the 
technical differences between the proposals.  The 4 or 5 additional 
points claimed for RTI's cost proposal would clearly have been 
irrelevant in the selection decision, which was based, properly, on an 
analysis of whether RTI's higher technical rating justified its higher 
cost.