TITLE:  Joseph W. Beausoleil, B-285643, August 31, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285643
DATE:  August 31, 2000
**********************************************************************
Joseph W. Beausoleil, B-285643, August 31, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Joseph W. Beausoleil

File: B-285643

Date: August 31, 2000

Kevin F. O'Donnell, Esq., and John K. Scales, Esq., U.S. Agency for
International Development, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

In evaluating applications submitted in response to a solicitation for a
personal services contract, agency properly considered the relevance of the
applicants' work experience to the contract requirements during the
evaluation of applications under the work experience criterion.

DECISION

Joseph W. Beausoleil protests the award of a personal services contract
under solicitation No. 675-00-005, issued by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (AID) for a monitoring and evaluation specialist
in Conakry, Guinea. [1] Mr. Beausoleil argues that the agency's evaluation
of his and the awardee's applications was unreasonable and inconsistent with
the solicitation's evaluation criteria.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued January 11, 2000, included a background section
explaining that the overall program goal for AID in Guinea is to achieve
"improved economic and social well being of all Guineans in a participatory
society." AID has established four program objectives aimed at achieving
this goal, such as "increased use of sustainable natural resource management
practices." The solicitation explained that a mission team will be assigned
to each objective and will be responsible for implementing activities to
achieve the assigned objective. The solicitation stated with regard to the
need for a monitoring and evaluation specialist that monitoring and
evaluation of the programs are vital to, among other things, "ensure that
the intended impacts of the activities and the program are being achieved."
Solicitation sect. A.

The solicitation provided for the award of a personal services contract for
a base period of 2 years with one 1-year option, and included a detailed
description of the tasks (both specific and general) to be performed by the
successful monitoring and evaluation specialist. For example, the successful
applicant will "[h]ave broad responsibility for the design and
implementation of the monitoring and evaluation systems," and will "[w]ork
with the teams to ensure that the indicators in the Performance Monitoring
Plans accurately measure the desired results, that the data are available
and collected by the responsible party, and that on-going monitoring takes
place." Solicitation sect.sect. C, D.

The solicitation also set forth the qualifications desired of candidates and
the information to be included in the applications. The solicitation
informed candidates that their applications would be evaluated under the
following criteria: education (25 percent); work experience (60 percent);
and French language capabilities (15 percent). Solicitation sect. G.

The agency received applications from 18 individuals, and selected 3
applications, including those submitted by the protester and the awardee,
for "detailed consideration" by an evaluation committee. Agency Report at 4.
The applications were evaluated individually by each committee member and an
overall composite score was calculated for each applicant. Agency Report,
Tab L, Memorandum of Selection Committee, at 1. The awardee's application
received a composite score of 388 out of 500 points, the application of a
second individual received 343 points, and the protester's application
received 322 points. The agency concluded that the awardee was the strongest
of the candidates based upon the applications submitted and selected her for
the position. Id. at 5.

The protester argues that the agency failed to evaluate his and the
awardee's applications reasonably and in accordance with the "work
experience" criterion set forth in the solicitation.

The work experience evaluation criterion was set forth in the solicitation
as follows:

--At least 5 years of demonstrated experience in monitoring and evaluating
performance and impact of development projects or programs with increasing
responsibility in developing countries.

--Experience managing donors funded development assistance programs in a
francophone country is also desirable.

The record of the evaluation consists primarily of the worksheets completed
by each of the five members of the selection committee, and the memorandum
prepared by the chairman of the committee. The awardee's application
received scores of 43, 50, 50, 40, and 50 points under the work experience
criterion, for an average score of 46.6 points and a composite score of 233
points. Mr. Beausoleil's application received scores of 28, 37, 50, 20 and
35 points under the work experience criterion, for an average score of 34
points and a composite score of 170 points. Agency Report, Tab L, Memorandum
of Selection Committee, at 1. The committee found, based upon the awardee's
application, that, among other things, her work experience was "strongly
relevant to the requirement contained in the position description," given
that for the past 3 years she had worked in and managed a monitoring and
evaluation unit in an AID Mission in Haiti that was "geared to the planning
for and collection and interpretation of performance data." Id. at 3-4. The
committee also noted that the awardee's experience included working as a
monitoring and evaluation officer for UNICEF from 1992 through 1995. Id.

With regard to the protester, the committee found that, while Mr. Beausoleil
has "strong skills in program management" and "in managing performance-based
contracts," he lacked monitoring and evaluation specialist "experience in
developing countries in a donor-funded development assistance program" and
in providing monitoring and evaluation training in francophone countries.
Id. at 2, 4.

In challenging the agency's evaluation, the protester contends that, during
the evaluation of applications under the work experience criterion, the
selection committee members improperly considered the agency's needs, as set
forth in the solicitation's description of the tasks (both specific and
general) to be performed, in rating the applications. For example, the
protester points out that one committee member noted in evaluating the
protester's application that, "[w]ith respect to the specific kind of hands
on field experience required of the position, the candidate is lacking in
the required skills." Protester's Comments at 3. The protester concludes
here that this committee member "appears to have evaluated me not against
the work experience factor as expressed in the solicitation but against the
position description of the [monitoring and evaluation] specialist found in
the solicitation." Id. As a second example, the protester points out that
another committee member, in assigning a score of 20 out of 60 points under
the work experience evaluation criterion, commented that "there is little
evidence of experience in the kind of [monitoring and evaluation] that we
are looking for." Id. at 5.

Much of the protester's challenge to the agency's evaluation of his and the
awardee's applications results from the protester's misunderstanding of the
solicitation. That is, the protester in essence argues that it was improper
for the agency, in evaluating applications under the work experience
criterion, to consider in any manner the relevance of the applicants' work
experience to the tasks to be performed under this contract. In our view,
the protester construes the evaluation section of the solicitation
unreasonably narrowly, interpreting it as if it stands alone without the
rest of the solicitation to complement it. The solicitation should be read
and interpreted as a whole, and therefore, the section of the solicitation
that describes the tasks to be performed by the successful applicant and the
solicitation's evaluation criteria should be read together as a description
of the agency's requirements and how it would evaluate the applications
submitted. See Recon Optical, B-232125, Dec. 1, 1988, 88-2 CPD para. 544 at 8-9.
Accordingly, there was nothing improper in the committee members'
consideration of the relevance of the applicants' experience to the work
that will be performed under this solicitation in scoring applications under
the work experience criterion.

The protester also complains that the committee acted unreasonably in
concluding that the protester lacked monitoring and evaluation specialist
experience. In this regard, the protester points to a number of positions he
has held, such as a foreign service officer for AID in Guinea-Bissau, Egypt,
and Ecuador. According to the protester's application, as a foreign service
officer he "applied monitoring and evaluation skills to measure results and
used the findings to redesign projects or reprogram resources." Agency
Report, Tab F, Beausoleil Application, attach. A; see Protester's Comments
at 3-5. The protester also points out that from 1975 to 1980 he served as a
supervisory evaluation specialist for ACTION, during which time he, among
other things, "[d]esigned a system for evaluating Peace Corps country
programs." Beausoleil Application, attach. A; see Protester's Comments at 5.

With regard to the agency's evaluation of the awardee's application under
the work experience criterion, the protester contends that "[a] reasonable
assessment of the selected candidate's work experience based upon the
comments found in the selected candidate's score sheets would be that she
did not meet the required work experience sub-factor." Protester's
Supplemental Comments at 3. The protester here points out that certain
members of the selection committee noted that the awardee "lack[s a]
theoretical background," and that her application is "weak in communicating
what she has done." Protester's Supplemental Comments at 2, 4; Agency
Report, Tab I, Committee Member Worksheets. The protester adds that the
awardee's scores under the work experience evaluation criterion were
unreasonably high as the result of the selection committee having "changed
the description of the kind of work experience to ‘hands-on'
[monitoring and evaluation] experience." Protester's Supplemental Comments
at 3.

As the protester's complaints indicate, the agency found that the awardee's
work experience, which included direct experience as a monitoring and
evaluation specialist officer and coordinator, should be evaluated more
favorably than the protester's work experience, which consisted primarily of
his experience as a foreign service officer during which his management of
certain programs required the use of monitoring and evaluation techniques.
In our view, the agency's assignment of a higher score to the awardee's
application than the protester's based upon its view, which is supported by
the record, that the awardee's work experience was more relevant to the
position being solicited here, was neither inconsistent with the work
experience criterion nor unreasonable.

The committee member's comment that the awardee's application is "weak in
communicating what she has done" does not appear significant when the record
is considered as a whole or when considered in light of the work experience
criterion. In any event, the protester has not explained why this committee
member's scoring of the awardee's proposal as 43 out of 60 points was
unreasonable, given that the only weaknesses noted on this committee
member's worksheets relate to how that work experience was described in the
awardee's application, and not to the awardee's actual work experience.
Similarly, the protester has not explained why the scoring of the awardee's
application as 50 out of 60 points under the work experience criterion by
the committee member who found that the awardee "lack[s a] theoretical
background" was unreasonable, given that this comment was the only weakness
identified by that member.

The protester also points out that one committee member commented that the
awardee "does not have the 5 years experience in monitoring and evaluation,"
and contends, based primarily on this comment, that the awardee's
application should have been rejected. Comments at 8; Supplemental Comments
at 3. The agency responds that the committee member's statement that the
awardee lacked the requisite 5 years of monitoring and evaluation experience
is "inconsistent with [the awardee's] qualifications and experience," and
that, in its view, the committee member should have evaluated the awardee's
application more favorably with a higher score. Supplemental Report at 3
n.4. Based on our review, we agree with the agency that this committee
member's statement that the awardee does not have the requisite 5 years
experience cannot be reconciled with the record here, including the
awardee's application, the views of the other four committee members, and
the committee as a whole as reflected in the committee's memorandum
recommending that the awardee be selected for the position.

Based on our review, we find reasonable the agency's evaluation of the
applications under the work experience evaluation criterion and the agency's
award selection.

The protest is denied.

Robert P. Murphy

General Counsel

Notes

1. Our Office has jurisdiction over this protest as it concerns a contract
for the procurement of services. See 31 U.S.C. sect.sect. 3551(1), 3552 (1994 &
Supp. IV 1998); Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 37.104; Mary Jo McDonough,
B-270530, B-270530.2, Mar. 13, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 154 at 2 n.2.