B-198109(1), DEC 1, 1980

B-198109(1): Dec 1, 1980

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

OFFERORS SHOULD HAVE REASONABLY READ "EXPERIENCE" CRITERION OF RFP FOR CLAIMS PROCESSING AS PRIMARILY ENCOMPASSING "SELF-FUNDED" EXPERIENCE (THAT IS. GAO CANNOT QUESTION PROCURING AGENCY'S FURTHER POSITIONS THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "SELF FUNDED" EXPERIENCE AND NON- "SELF-FUNDED" EXPERIENCE. GAO CANNOT QUESTION PROCURING AGENCY'S POSITIONS THAT CONCERN ABOUT BACKLOGS OF CLAIMS UNDER PROTESTER'S PRIOR CONTRACT WAS "CONSIDERABLY OFFSET" BY AGENCY'S KNOWLEDGE THAT IT HAD CONTRIBUTED TO BACKLOGS AND THAT THERE WAS NO OVERALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROTESTER AND CONTRACTOR UNDER "PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE" CRITERION. 3. EVEN IF CONTRACTING OFFICER IMPROPERLY FAILED TO ATTEND MEETING AT WHICH AWARD RATIONALE WAS DISCUSSED.

B-198109(1), DEC 1, 1980

DIGEST: 1. OFFERORS SHOULD HAVE REASONABLY READ "EXPERIENCE" CRITERION OF RFP FOR CLAIMS PROCESSING AS PRIMARILY ENCOMPASSING "SELF-FUNDED" EXPERIENCE (THAT IS, EXPERIENCE RELATING TO PAYMENT OF CLIENTS', RATHER THAN INSURERS', FUNDS TO SETTLE CLAIMS) AND ONLY INCIDENTALLY INCLUDING NON-"SELF-FUNDED" EXPERIENCE. GAO CANNOT QUESTION PROCURING AGENCY'S FURTHER POSITIONS THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "SELF FUNDED" EXPERIENCE AND NON- "SELF-FUNDED" EXPERIENCE. NEVERTHELESS, AID IMPROPERLY FAILED TO INFORM PROTESTER THAT AID HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN DETAILS OF SELF- FUNDED EXPERIENCE FROM PROTESTER'S CLIENTS. 2. GAO CANNOT QUESTION PROCURING AGENCY'S POSITIONS THAT CONCERN ABOUT BACKLOGS OF CLAIMS UNDER PROTESTER'S PRIOR CONTRACT WAS "CONSIDERABLY OFFSET" BY AGENCY'S KNOWLEDGE THAT IT HAD CONTRIBUTED TO BACKLOGS AND THAT THERE WAS NO OVERALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROTESTER AND CONTRACTOR UNDER "PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE" CRITERION. 3. PROCURING AGENCY PROPERLY EVALUATED PROTESTER'S EXISTING CLAIM PROCESSING SYSTEM SINCE PROTESTER PROPOSED USE OF ITS IN-HOUSE COMPUTERS. 4. EVEN IF CONTRACTING OFFICER IMPROPERLY FAILED TO ATTEND MEETING AT WHICH AWARD RATIONALE WAS DISCUSSED, FAILURE DOES NOT AFFECT AWARD PROPRIETY.

INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS, INC.:

INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS, INC. (INTERNATIONAL), PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A COST-REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACT TO TRUST FUND ADMINISTRATORS, INC. (TFA), BY THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (AID) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNDER PROCUREMENT NUMBER AID-REP/SOD/PDC-50181. THE CONTRACT WAS FOR THE OPERATION OF A "SELF-FUNDED" HEALTH AND ACCIDENT COST PROGRAM (THAT IS, A PROGRAM WHOSE CLAIMS WOULD BE PAID OUT OF AID'S OWN FUNDS) FOR FOREIGN STUDENT PARTICIPANTS IN AID PROGRAMS.

BASED ON OUR REVIEW OF THE RECORD, WE SUSTAIN THE PROTEST.

BACKGROUND

THE RFP CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE REQUIREMENT:

"A. EXPERIENCE OF OFFERING ORGANIZATION IN PROVIDING HEALTH AND ACCIDENT CLAIM PROCESSING SERVICES. THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WILL BE CONSIDERED:

1. LENGTH AND EXPERIENCE.

2. RELEVANCE OF EXPERIENCE TO WORK UNDER THE PROPOSED CONTRACT.

3. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE.

"B. EXPERIENCE OF THE PROPOSED PERSONNEL IN PROVIDING HEALTH AND ACCIDENT CLAIM PROCESSING SERVICES. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED:

1. LENGTH OF EXPERIENCE.

2. RELEVANCE OF EXPERIENCE TO WORK UNDER THE PROPOSED CONTRACT.

3. LENGTH OF ASSOCIATION WITH OFFEROR.

"C. APPROPRIATENESS OF SYSTEM PROPOSED FOR ACCUMULATING AND PROCESSING DATA.

"D. ABILITY OF OFFEROR TO WORK CLOSELY WITH A.I.D. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRAINING. THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE DAILY FLOW OF DOCUMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A.I.D. AND THE CONTRACTOR BE FACILITATED. PHYSICAL PROXIMITY TO A.I.D.'S WASHINGTON (ROSSLYN) OFFICES IS PREFERRED. *** 20

TOTAL 100" IN CONTRAST TO THE EXPLICIT WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO THE TECHNICAL CRITERIA, THE ONLY RFP STATEMENT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF COST WAS THAT COST WAS OF "LESSER IMPORTANCE" THAN "TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS."

AID REPORTS THAT ON THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF INITIAL PROPOSALS (NOVEMBER 30, 1979) ONLY TWO PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED FOR THE REQUIREMENT FROM INTERNATIONAL AND TFA. AID THEN EVALUATED THE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS AND DETERMINED THAT BOTH PROPOSALS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE COMPETITIVE RANGE.

FOLLOWING THIS DECISION, AID REPORTS THAT IT CONDUCTED "MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS WITH BOTH OFFERORS." THE DISCUSSIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL CONSISTED OF TWO QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE COMPANY'S "158 GROUP ACCOUNTS" AND THE "KINDS OF ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING EDP PRINTOUT REPORTS" THE COMPANY WAS "CURRENTLY PREPARING." THE QUESTION ABOUT CURRENT EDP REPORTS WAS EXPRESSLY LINKED TO "QUESTION 12" OF THE "INSTRUCTION FOR PREPARATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL" PART OF THE RFP WHICH PROVIDED:

"PLEASE INDICATE THE TYPE OF RECORD KEEPING EQUIPMENT YOU WILL USE ***. IF EDP EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED *** INCLUDE COPIES OF PROPOSED EDP PRINTOUTS."

INTERNATIONAL REPORTS THAT RESPONSES TO THESE QUESTIONS WERE PROVIDED TO AID ON DECEMBER 11, 1980.

AFTER FINAL OFFERS WERE RECEIVED UNDER THE RFP, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT TFA SHOULD RECEIVE AN AWARD NOTWITHSTANDING THE HIGHER COST OF ITS PROPOSAL (APPROXIMATELY 26 PERCENT HIGHER THAN INTERNATIONAL'S PROPOSED COST) IN VIEW OF TFA'S "SUPERIOR" TECHNICAL SCORE WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY 26 PERCENT HIGHER THAN INTERNATIONAL'S TECHNICAL SCORE.

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FOR THIS PROCUREMENT HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONING JUSTIFYING TFA'S HIGHER SCORE, AS FOLLOWS:

"CRITERION A: ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE

"BOTH FIRMS CLEARLY SHOWED EXPERIENCE BUT INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS DID NOT HAVE EXPERIENCE IN ADMINISTERING SELF-FUNDED PROGRAMS. THERE WAS ALSO SOME CONCERN ABOUT BACKLOGS OF CLAIMS UNDER THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT WITH INTERNATIONAL, BUT THIS WAS CONSIDERABLY OFFSET BY THE PANEL'S KNOWLEDGE THAT A.I.D. HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDING ADEQUATE PARTICIPANT ENROLLMENT INFORMATION.

"CRITERION B: PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT OVERALL DIFFERENCE. *** INTERNATIONAL'S ATTORNEY ASKED IF TRUST FUND HAD EXPERIENCE WITH FOREIGN STUDENTS. SAID IT DID NOT BUT THAT THIS WAS ONLY ONE OF SEVERAL VARIABLES TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

"CRITERION C: DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS

"*** IN OUR JUDGMENT IT WAS THE DATA PROCESSING, THE REPORTING, THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT, AND THE PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING CLAIMS THAT WERE THE AREAS WHICH WOULD DETERMINE THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM. *** INTERNATIONAL WAS RESPONSIVE IN THESE AREAS BUT TRUST FUND WAS ALREADY OPERATING WITH THE KINDS OF REPORTS WE WOULD NEED AND IT CLEARLY CONCENTRATED ITS WHOLE OPERATION ON CLAIMS PROCESSING RATHER THAN ON BOTH INSURANCE BROKERAGE AND CLAIMS PROCESSING.

"CRITERION D: WORKING WITH A.I.D.

*** THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO WAS THE GREATER CONVENIENCE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN A.I.D. AND THE OTHER FIRMS."

INTERNATIONAL TAKES SPECIFIC ISSUE WITH THE COMMENTS UNDER CRITERIA "A," "B," "C," AND "D."

ANALYSIS

CRITERION A - SELF-FUNDING EXPERIENCE

INTERNATIONAL RAISES THE FOLLOWING POINTS ABOUT THE COMMENTS MADE UNDER CRITERION "A":

(1) THE EMPHASIS GIVEN TO EXPERIENCE WITH "SELF-FUNDING" IS IMPROPER BECAUSE "SELF-FUNDING" EXPERIENCE IS NOT EXPRESSLY LISTED AS AN EVALUATION STANDARD;

(2) "SELF-FUNDING" EXPERIENCE IS NOT ANY MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN EXPERIENCE WITH COMMERCIAL CLAIMS;

(3) INTERNATIONAL'S PROPOSAL CONTAINED TWO INSTANCES OF SELF-FUNDING EXPERIENCE WHICH WERE NOT EVALUATED BY AID.

IN REPLY TO INTERNATIONAL'S ALLEGATIONS, AID'S ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT CONTENDS:

(1) THE CONSIDERATION OF "SELF-FUNDING" EXPERIENCE WAS PROPER SINCE THE WORK WAS TO BE DONE UNDER THE "SELF-FUNDING" CONCEPT;

(2) AID ATTEMPTED TO GET DETAILS ON TWO OF "INTERNATIONAL'S SELF-FUNDED CLIENTS; HOWEVER, REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN ANY INFORMATION ON THESE TWO ACCOUNTS *** WERE UNSUCCESSFUL."

THE RFP CRITERION IN QUESTION EXPRESSLY MENTIONED "RELEVANCE OF EXPERIENCE TO WORK UNDER THE PROPOSED CONTRACT"; MOREOVER, ALL OFFERORS KNEW THAT THE WORK WAS TO BE DONE UNDER A "SELF-FUNDED" CONCEPT. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT OFFERORS SHOULD HAVE REASONABLY READ THE ABOVE "EXPERIENCE" CRITERION AS PRIMARILY ENCOMPASSING "SELF FUNDED" EXPERIENCE AND ONLY INCIDENTALLY INCLUDING CLAIM PROCESSING EXPERIENCE WITH THE INSURER'S OWN FUNDS.

THUS, WE CANNOT OBJECT TO AID'S EXAMINATION OF THE OFFERORS'"SELF FUNDING" EXPERIENCE. MOREOVER, GIVEN THE OBVIOUS FUNDING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMERCIALLY FUNDED AND "SELF-FUNDED" PLANS AND THE CONCOMITANT NEED FOR GREATER LIAISON BETWEEN THE INVOLVED PARTIES IN THE "SELF FUNDED" PLANS, WE REJECT INTERNATIONAL'S ASSERTION THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND SELF-FUNDED PLANS.

AS TO INTERNATIONAL'S ASSERTION THAT ITS SELF-FUNDED EXPERIENCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED, AID MAINTAINS THAT ITS EVALUATORS MADE REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN DETAILS OF THAT EXPERIENCE FROM INTERNATIONAL'S SELF FUNDED CLIENTS, BUT THAT THESE ATTEMPTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. INTERNATIONAL, FOR ITS PART, INSISTS THAT IT WAS NOT AWARE THAT AID HAD TRIED, BUT FAILED, TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION FROM ITS CLIENTS.

BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT SEEMS TO US AID SHOULD HAVE TOLD INTERNATIONAL DURING THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION OF ITS INABILITY TO CONTACT INTERNATIONAL'S CLIENTS. CONTRACTING AGENCIES HAVE A DUTY TO POINT OUT DEFICIENCIES IN AN OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL DURING THE COURSE OF COMPETITIVE RANGE DISCUSSIONS. CHECCHI AND COMPANY, 56 COMP.GEN. 473 (1977), 77-1 CPD 232. WHILE SOME TYPES OF DEFICIENCIES MAY NOT BE READILY CURED, THE TYPE OF DEFICIENCY NOTED HERE IS PARTICULARLY SUITABLE TO CURE THROUGH DISCUSSIONS. THE DEFICIENCY WAS NOT THAT INTERNATIONAL LACKED EXPERIENCE IN SELF-FUNDED PROGRAMS, BUT THAT IT HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF ITS EXPERIENCE. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY INTERNATIONAL WAS NOT ASKED TO PROVIDE THE MISSING INFORMATION OR NOT INFORMED OF THE PROBLEM AID WAS HAVING IN CONTACTING INTERNATIONAL'S CLIENTS. THE DEFICIENCY MIGHT HAVE BEEN EASILY REMEDIED. WE THINK THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE MEANINGFUL HAD AID DISCUSSED THE DEFICIENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL PRIOR TO CALLING FOR BEST AND FINAL OFFERS.

UNDER THIS CRITERION, INTERNATIONAL ALSO INSISTS THAT AID IMPROPERLY DEDUCTED POINTS FROM THE COMPANY'S TECHNICAL SCORE BECAUSE OF ERRONEOUS JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE CAUSE OF BACKLOGS OF CLAIMS UNDER INTERNATIONAL'S PRIOR "COMMERCIAL" CONTRACT. NEVERTHELESS, WE CANNOT QUESTION AID'S POSITION, AS NOTED ABOVE, THAT WHATEVER CONCERN EXISTED ABOUT THESE BACKLOGS WAS "CONSIDERABLY OFFSET" BY AID'S KNOWLEDGE THAT IT HAD NOT PROVIDED THE COMPANY WITH ADEQUATE ENROLLMENT INFORMATION. THUS, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT INTERNATIONAL WAS NOT PREJUDICED ON THIS POINT.

CRITERION B: PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE

INTERNATIONAL CONTENDS THAT AID DID NOT GIVE THE COMPANY APPROPRIATE CREDIT FOR ITS EXPERIENCE IN PROCESSING CLAIMS OF FOREIGN STUDENTS; MOREOVER, INTERNATIONAL INSISTS THAT AID DID NOT SUBTRACT POINTS FOR TFA'S LACK OF THIS TYPE OF EXPERIENCE.

WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO QUESTION AID'S JUDGMENT THAT THERE WAS "NO SIGNIFICANT OVERALL DIFFERENCE" BETWEEN THE TWO PROPOSALS IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THE SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE CITED BY INTERNATIONAL WAS ONLY ONE KIND OF RELEVANT EXPERIENCE FOR THE WORK IN QUESTION.

CRITERION C: DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM

INTERNATIONAL CONTENDS THAT AID IMPROPERLY COMPARED THE OFFERORS' EXISTING SYSTEMS RATHER THAN PROPOSED SYSTEMS FOR "ACCUMULATING AND PROCESSING DATA." FOR EXAMPLE, INTERNATIONAL NOTES THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL CHAIRMAN'S OBSERVATION THAT TFA "WAS ALREADY OPERATING WITH THE KINDS OF NEEDED REPORTS" AS AN INDICATION THAT AID IMPROPERLY ACCORDED MERIT FOR EXISTING RATHER THAN PROPOSED SYSTEMS, AS REQUIRED UNDER THIS CRITERION.

UNDER THIS CRITERION, INTERNATIONAL ALSO ASSERTS THAT AID IMPROPERLY SUBTRACTED MERIT FROM ITS PROPOSAL RESULTING FROM A COMPARISON OF THE OFFERORS' OFFICE LAYOUTS AND ABILITIES TO GENERATE CERTAIN COMPUTER REPORTS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE RFP. AS TO "OFFICE LAYOUTS," THIS CONSIDERATION REFLECTED AID'S JUDGMENT, AS NOTED ABOVE, THAT INTERNATIONAL DID NOT CONCENTRATE ITS WHOLE OPERATION (AS TFA APPARENTLY DOES) ON CLAIMS PROCESSING TO THE EXCLUSION OF INSURANCE BROKERAGE.

IT SEEMS TO US AID'S CONCERN WITH INTERNATIONAL'S EXISTING SYSTEM WAS RELEVANT TO ITS EVALUATION OF INTERNATIONAL'S PROPOSED DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM, SINCE INTERNATIONAL PROPOSED TO USE ITS IN-HOUSE COMPUTER. AID EXPLAINS THAT THE DATA PROCESSING, THE REPORTING, THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT, AND THE PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING CLAIMS WERE THE AREAS WHICH WOULD DETERMINE THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM. AID'S EXAMINATION OF BOTH OFFERORS' EXISTING SYSTEMS INDICATED THAT TFA'S PROPOSED SYSTEM WOULD BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE THAN WOULD INTERNATIONAL'S, IN PART BECAUSE TFA WOULD CONCENTRATE ITS WHOLE OPERATIONS ON CLAIMS PROCESSING RATHER THAN ON BOTH INSURANCE BROKERAGE AND CLAIMS PROCESSING AS WOULD INTERNATIONAL. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT IT WAS REASONABLE FOR AID TO ACCORD GREATER MERIT TO TFA'S PROPOSED DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM THAN TO INTERNATIONAL'S PROPOSED SYSTEM EVEN THOUGH INTERNATIONAL OFFERED TO MEET THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP.

CRITERION D: WORKING WITH AID

UNDER THIS CRITERION, AID HAS EFFECTIVELY ADMITTED THAT TFA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ADDITIONAL MERIT BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION SINCE BOTH INTERNATIONAL AND TFA ARE LOCATED IN THE WASHINGTON, D. C., METROPOLITAN AREA. AS STATED BY AID:

"OBVIOUSLY A.I.D.'S CONCERN HERE WAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LOGISTICS PROBLEMS THAT COULD OCCUR IF A SMALL BUSINESS OFFEROR WHO WAS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON, D. C. METROPOLITAN AREA HAD DECIDED TO SUBMIT A TECHNICALLY RESPONSIVE PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION. TO ARGUE THAT THERE IS ANY SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FIRM (INTERNATIONAL) LOCATED IN TYSON'S CORNER, VIRGINIA AND ONE (T.F.A.) LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF THE BUSINESS DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, D. C. DETRACTS FROM MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES RAISED IN THE PROTEST."

THEREFORE, THE RECOMMENDED REEVALUATION REFERRED TO BELOW SHOULD NOT ACCORD GREATER MERIT TO TFA'S PROPOSAL BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS' GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. INTERNATIONAL ALSO ALLEGES THAT AID'S CONTRACTING OFFICER IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO ATTEND A MEETING ARRANGED BY AID TO EXPLAIN THE AWARD RATIONALE. NEVERTHELESS, EVEN IF THIS IS TRUE, THE REFUSAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE PROPRIETY OF THE AWARD.

ACCORDINGLY, WE SUSTAIN INTERNATIONAL'S PROTEST WITH REGARD TO THE ASSERTION THAT ITS SELF-FUNDED EXPERIENCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RECOMMEND THAT INTERNATIONAL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY PROMPTLY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO AID OF ITS SELF-FUNDING EXPERIENCE AS SET FORTH IN ITS PROPOSAL. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR AID TO INSIST THAT DETAILS OF THAT EXPERIENCE BE FURNISHED BY INTERNATIONAL'S CLIENTS REFERENCED IN ITS PROPOSAL.

IF INTERNATIONAL IS ABLE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF SELF-FUNDED EXPERIENCE, WE FURTHER RECOMMEND THAT AID REEVALUATE INTERNATIONAL'S PROPOSAL IN LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FURNISHED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE AWARD SELECTION WAS PROPERLY MADE UNDER THE RFP CRITERIA. IN THE EVENT A REEVALUATION REVEALS THAT INTERNATIONAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR THE AWARD, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE EXISTING CONTRACT BE TERMINATED FOR CONVENIENCE AND AWARD MADE TO INTERNATIONAL FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT, IF FEASIBLE.