B-170633(2), MAY 3, 1971

B-170633(2): May 3, 1971

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 THE LETTER OF OCTOBER 28. WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF OUR DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST. WE POINTED OUT THAT NO SPECIFIC EVALUATION FACTORS DIRECTLY PERTINENT TO THE PROCUREMENT WERE SET OUT IN THE RFP AND WE ADVISED THAT THE NECESSITY FOR FURNISHING ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS IS IMPLICIT IN THE PROCUREMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES. GEN. 229 (1969) WHICH HELD THAT IF A POINT EVALUATION FORMULA IS TO BE USED. THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RFP INDICATES THAT A POINT EVALUATION FORMULA WAS USED. OFFERORS WERE NOT ADVISED OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO BE ATTACHED TO EACH FACTOR. WE HAVE HELD THAT A PREDETERMINED SCORE SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER PROPOSALS ARE WITHIN THE RANGE OF ACCEPTABILITY.

B-170633(2), MAY 3, 1971

BID PROTEST - NEGOTIATIONS - EVALUATION FORMULA WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCUREMENT IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH SYNERGY, INC., LODGED A PROTEST, THE COMP. GEN. HAS POINTED OUT (B-169148, 50 COMP. GEN. ) THE NECESSITY OF FURNISHING ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS. THEREFORE, OFFERORS SHOULD BE ADVISED OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO BE ATTACHED TO EACH EVALUATION FACTOR.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE LETTER OF OCTOBER 28, 1970, AFSPPLA, WITH ATTACHMENTS, AND LETTER OF MARCH 30, 1971, FROM WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, PMB, CONCERNING A PROTEST FROM SYNERGY, INCORPORATED, AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER CONCERN UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. F 33601-71-R-0002, ISSUED BY THE PROCUREMENT DIVISION, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO. WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF OUR DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST.

IN B-169148, OCTOBER 6, 1970, 50 COMP. GEN. , WE POINTED OUT THAT NO SPECIFIC EVALUATION FACTORS DIRECTLY PERTINENT TO THE PROCUREMENT WERE SET OUT IN THE RFP AND WE ADVISED THAT THE NECESSITY FOR FURNISHING ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS IS IMPLICIT IN THE PROCUREMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES, CITING ASPR 3-501(A). WE ALSO CITED 49 COMP. GEN. 229 (1969) WHICH HELD THAT IF A POINT EVALUATION FORMULA IS TO BE USED, OFFERORS SHOULD BE INFORMED AS TO THE EVALUATION FACTORS AND THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO BE ATTACHED TO EACH FACTOR. THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RFP INDICATES THAT A POINT EVALUATION FORMULA WAS USED. HOWEVER, OFFERORS WERE NOT ADVISED OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO BE ATTACHED TO EACH FACTOR. ALSO, WE HAVE HELD THAT A PREDETERMINED SCORE SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER PROPOSALS ARE WITHIN THE RANGE OF ACCEPTABILITY. B-169645(1), JULY 24, 1970, 50 COMP. GEN. 59. WE ARE BRINGING THESE MATTERS TO YOUR ATTENTION FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.