B-174589(2), MAR 28, 1972

B-174589(2): Mar 28, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IS RECOMMENDED THAT APPROPRIATE ACTION BE TAKEN TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THESE DEFICIENCIES IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS. RUCKELSHAUS: ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY TO ENVIROTRONICS DENYING ITS PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO FRANKLIN INSTITUTE RESEARCH LABORATORIES PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 23. THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS OF THIS PROCUREMENT WHICH REQUIRE COMMENT. WE HAVE MANY TIMES STATED THAT WHEN A POINT EVALUATION FORMULA IS USED IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS. THE RFP IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS DEFICIENT IN THIS RESPECT. WE HAVE SERIOUS RESERVATIONS AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF DETERMINING WHICH PROPOSALS ARE WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE BY COMPARING THEIR SCORES WITH A PREDETERMINED SCORE FOR ACCEPTABILITY.

B-174589(2), MAR 28, 1972

BID PROTEST - POINT EVALUATION FORMULA CONCERNING A DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST OF ENVIROTRONICS AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO FRANKLIN INSTITUTE RESEARCH LABORATORIES UNDER AN RFP ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. OFFERORS SHOULD BE INFORMED AS TO THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS UNDER A POINT EVALUATION FORMULA. FURTHER, A DETERMINATION OF COMPETITIVE RANGE SHOULD BE MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ARRAY OF SCORES ACTUALLY ACHIEVED RATHER THAN A PREDETERMINED LEVEL OF ACCEPTABILITY. IS RECOMMENDED THAT APPROPRIATE ACTION BE TAKEN TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THESE DEFICIENCIES IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.

TO MR. WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS:

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY TO ENVIROTRONICS DENYING ITS PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO FRANKLIN INSTITUTE RESEARCH LABORATORIES PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. CI 72-0003, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 23, 1972, FROM THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT.

THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS OF THIS PROCUREMENT WHICH REQUIRE COMMENT. WE HAVE MANY TIMES STATED THAT WHEN A POINT EVALUATION FORMULA IS USED IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS, AS HERE, SOUND PROCUREMENT POLICY DICTATES THAT OFFERORS BE INFORMED AS TO THE EVALUATION FACTORS AND THEIR RELATIVE WEIGHT OR IMPORTANCE. SEE 50 COMP. GEN. 59, 61 (1970), AND CASES CITED. THE RFP IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS DEFICIENT IN THIS RESPECT. ALSO, AS POINTED OUT AT PAGE 60 OF THE CITED CASE, WE HAVE SERIOUS RESERVATIONS AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF DETERMINING WHICH PROPOSALS ARE WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE BY COMPARING THEIR SCORES WITH A PREDETERMINED SCORE FOR ACCEPTABILITY, WHICH WAS APPARENTLY DONE HERE, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE ARRAY OF SCORES ACTUALLY ACHIEVED. WE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROCEDURE EMPLOYED IS CONDUCIVE TO OBTAINING THE MAXIMUM PRACTICABLE COMPETITION CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. WE THEREFORE SUGGEST THAT APPROPRIATE ACTION BE TAKEN TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THESE DEFICIENCIES IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.