B-169671(2), AUG 31, 1970

B-169671(2): Aug 31, 1970

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

SECRETARY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A REPORT DATED MAY 25. A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY DENYING THE CORPORATION'S PROTEST IS ENCLOSED. WE BELIEVE THAT THE RFP'S SHOULD HAVE CONTAINED A CLEARER INDICATION OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCESS. UNDER EACH SOLICITATION THE THREE MAIN GROUPINGS WERE DIVIDED INTO NUMEROUS OTHER FACTORS OR SUB-HEADINGS. THE SOLICITATIONS WERE SILENT AS TO HOW PROPOSALS WERE TO BE EVALUATED IN REGARD TO THE THREE MAIN GROUPINGS (I.E. IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS BY OUR OFFICE WE HAVE STATED THAT SOUND PROCUREMENT POLICY DICTATES THAT OFFERORS BE INFORMED OF ALL EVALUATION FACTORS AND OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE WEIGHT OF EACH FACTOR. 1969) WE STATED: "WHILE WE HAVE NEVER HELD.

B-169671(2), AUG 31, 1970

BID PROTEST -- RFP DEFICIENCIES SUGGESTING THAT IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS INVOLVING EVALUATION OF OFFERORS ON A POINT BASIS OFFERORS SHOULD BE ADVISED OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ALL FACTORS.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A REPORT DATED MAY 25, 1970, FROM THE DEPUTY COMMANDER, PURCHASING, NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND, RELATIVE TO A PROTEST BY FISHERMEN'S BOAT SHOP, INC., AGAINST THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS TO OTHER FIRMS UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NOS. N61339-70-R-0077 AND N61339- 70-R-0061, ISSUED BY THE NAVAL TRAINING DEVICE CENTER, ORLANDO, FLORIDA.

A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY DENYING THE CORPORATION'S PROTEST IS ENCLOSED. WHILE WE FOUND NO BASIS FOR INTERFERING WITH THE CONTRACTS AWARDED, WE BELIEVE THAT THE RFP'S SHOULD HAVE CONTAINED A CLEARER INDICATION OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCESS.

THE SOLICITATIONS DIVIDED THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SECTION INTO THREE MAIN GROUPINGS: TECHNICAL APPROACH, IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND INTEGRATED LOGISTIC SUPPORT (ILS). UNDER EACH SOLICITATION THE THREE MAIN GROUPINGS WERE DIVIDED INTO NUMEROUS OTHER FACTORS OR SUB-HEADINGS. THE SOLICITATIONS WERE SILENT AS TO HOW PROPOSALS WERE TO BE EVALUATED IN REGARD TO THE THREE MAIN GROUPINGS (I.E., EQUAL WEIGHT OR OTHERWISE) OR AS TO THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EACH OF THE FACTORS CONTAINED WITHIN THE THREE GROUPINGS. THE SCORING SYSTEM ACTUALLY USED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER APPEARS TO GIVE EQUAL WEIGHT TO THE THREE MAIN GROUPINGS BUT GIVES NO INSIGHT INTO THE IMPORTANCE PLACED ON THE DIFFERENT FACTORS WITHIN THE GROUPS TO ARRIVE AT THE COMPOSITE SCORE FOR EACH GROUP.

IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS BY OUR OFFICE WE HAVE STATED THAT SOUND PROCUREMENT POLICY DICTATES THAT OFFERORS BE INFORMED OF ALL EVALUATION FACTORS AND OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE WEIGHT OF EACH FACTOR. SEE 50 COMP. GEN. (B-169645(1), JULY 24, 1970) AND CASES CITED THEREIN. IN 49 COMP. GEN. (B -167175, OCTOBER 13, 1969) WE STATED:

"WHILE WE HAVE NEVER HELD, AND DO NOT NOW INTEND TO DO SO, THAT ANY MATHEMATICAL FORMULA IS REQUIRED TO BE USED IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS, WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN IT IS INTENDED THAT NUMERICAL RATINGS WILL BE EMPLOYED OFFERORS SHOULD BE INFORMED OF AT LEAST THE MAJOR FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED AND THE BROAD SCHEME OF SCORING TO BE EMPLOYED. WHETHER OR NOT NUMERICAL RATINGS ARE TO BE USED, WE BELIEVE THAT NOTICE SHOULD BE GIVEN AS TO ANY MINIMUM STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED AS TO ANY PARTICULAR ELEMENT OF EVALUATION, AS WELL AS REASONABLY DEFINITE INFORMATION AS TO THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE TO BE ACCORDED TO PARTICULAR FACTORS IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER."

WE THEREFORE SUGGEST THAT APPROPRIATE ACTION BE TAKEN TO ASSURE THAT OFFERORS IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS INVOLVING EVALUATION ON A POINT SCORE BASIS ARE ADVISED OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ALL EVALUATION FACTORS.

THE FILE FORWARDED WITH THE REPORT OF MAY 25 IS RETURNED.