Allegation That Awardee's Bid Cost Analysis Was Not Proper

A firm protested the award of a contract to a competitor under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The protester complained that the award should not have been made to the competitor on the basis of its low cost estimate since the protester received the highest technical score and the cost difference was slight. The protester also contended that EPA failed to perform a proper cost analysis. The evaluation documents substantiated the position of EPA that both firms received either above average or superior rating in all categories. Deciding whether a given difference in point scoring is significant, or whether the technical proposals are essentially equal despite the difference in point score, involves the exercise of judgment and discretion on the part of the contracting agency. EPA had a reasonable basis to determine that a spread of six points in the scoring of the two highest ranked acceptable proposals was not significant and that the proposals were essentially equal. However, a proper cost analysis was not made and the protest was sustained on that basis. The Administrator of EPA was advised to take corrective action. Where two offerors are considered technically equal and the differential between acceptable offerors' cost estimates is slight, prudence dictates that detailed cost analysis be made of each proposal and that a comtemporaneous record of analysis be kept.