Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a

GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been

approved for public release.

 

Decision 

Matter of: Fintrac, Inc. 

File: B-311462.2; B-311462.3

Date: October 14, 2008 

Tenley A. Carp, Esq., Victor G. Klingelhofer, Esq., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cohen 

Mohr LLP, for the protester. 

Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., G. Drew Fuller, Esq., and Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Sebaly 

Shillito + Dyer, for the intervenor. 

John B. Alumbaugh, Esq., and Elizabeth A. Ransom, Esq., Agency for International 

Development, for the agency. 

Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Protest challenging agency’s revision to scoring methodology used to evaluate 

offerors’ technical proposals is denied where the revision reasonably addressed an 

error in the agency’s prior scoring methodology. 

2. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of offerors’ technical and cost proposals

is denied where the record supports the reasonableness of the evaluations. 

DECISION 

Fintrac, Inc. protests the award of a contract to CNFA, Inc. by the United States 

Agency for International Development (USAID), under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. M-OAA-DCHA-AFP-07-0011, for assistance with the agency’s Market Chain 

Enhancement Program (MarChE) in Haiti. The protester contends that USAID’s

evaluation of the offerors’ technical and cost proposals was flawed, that the agency 

failed to provide meaningful discussions, and that the selection decision was flawed. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND 

The RFP was issued in March 2007 and sought proposals to provide economic 

development assistance to Haiti. The MarChE program seeks to increase the number
of Haitians participating in sustainable economic activity. The RFP anticipated 

award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 3-year base period, and two 1-year 

option periods. 

The RFP stated that offerors would be evaluated on the basis of six evaluation 

factors. The RFP stated that the factors were listed “in descending order of

importance,” but also assigned specific points to the factors; these points were 

inconsistent with the “descending order of importance” evaluation scheme, as 

follows: technical approach (25 points), personnel (20 points), corporate capability 

(10 points), work and milestone plan (35 points), and past performance (10 points). 

Id. at 96-97. When potential offerors pointed out the inconsistency, the agency 

amended to the solicitation to clarify that it would use the point scores to establish 

the relative importance of the factors. RFP amend. 3, Question and Answer (Q&A) 

No. 42. Under each of the technical evaluation factors, other than personnel, the 

RFP identified a number of subfactors. 

Other relevant sections of the RFP advised that the agency would evaluate offerors’ 

proposed approaches to meet the requirements of the statement of work (SOW), 

which contained nine “tasks” for contract performance. In turn, each of the tasks

identified more “requirements,” under which the solicitation identified a number of

“standards.” RFP § C. With respect to costs, the RFP stated that cost would be 

evaluated for reasonableness, allowability, allocability, and cost realism. RFP at 96. 

The solicitation also stated that, for purposes of the selection decision, “[a]ll 

technical evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than 

cost.” Id.

Initial Evaluation and Protest

USAID received proposals from six offerors, including Fintrac and CNFA, by the 

initial closing date of April 27, 2007. The agency’s evaluation of the offeror’s 

technical and cost proposals was conducted by a technical evaluation panel (TEC). 

In September 2007, USAID established a competitive range of three offerors’ 

proposals, including proposals from Fintrac and CNFA. The agency notified Fintrac 

of the competitive range determination and conducted discussions regarding a 

number of issues. As relevant here, USAID advised Fintrac that its proposed salaries

for six “local hire specialist positions” were not realistic, because they “appear to be 

between approximately [deleted] lower than the prevailing market rate.” Agency 

Report (AR), Tab 20, Discussions Questions, Sept. 27, 2007, attach. B, at 1. The 

agency further advised that “it is unlikely suitable candidates will be attracted to 

field locations at such low salaries.” Id. at 2. USAID also advised the protester that 

its proposal had a “significant weakness” because it did not identify “three nontraditional, non-agricultural products/services that would benefit from project

support,” as required by the SOW at task 1, requirement 1.2. Id., attach. A, at 4. In its 

proposal revision, Fintrac increased its proposed salaries and revised its response to

requirement 1.2. 

Page 2 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
In February 2008, USAID conducted a second round of discussions with the offerors

whose proposals were in the competitive range. As relevant here, the agency 

advised Fintrac that Haitian law required offerors to provide severance benefits 

equal to 1 month of salary per year of service. AR, Tab 34, Discussions Questions, 

Feb. 6, 2008, encl. A, at 2. The agency also advised the protester that its proposal still

contained a significant weakness because it did not adequately identify nontraditional products/services as required by the SOW at task 1, requirement 1.2. Id.

at 1. In its final proposal revision, Fintrac increased its proposed costs to comply 

with the agency’s information concerning the severance pay requirements, and again 

revised its proposal concerning requirement 1.2. 

In its evaluation of final proposal revisions, USAID weighted the evaluation factors 

as it indicated in its amendment to the solicitation. The agency also weighted the 

subfactors under each evaluation factor in descending order of importance. 

Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 4. At the conclusion of the evaluation, the 

technical proposals and most probable cost were assessed as follows: 

FINTRAC CNFA

TOTAL SCORE (100 points) 88.1 89.0

Most Probable Cost $25,687,783 $23,999,834

AR, Tab 46, Initial Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 6-7, 12, 22. 

Given these results, USAID concluded that the technical proposals were essentially 

equal. Thus, the difference between the proposed costs became the primary 

discriminator; given CNFA’s lower proposed costs, the agency selected its proposal 

for award. Id. at 27. The agency noted that although CNFA was a not-for-profit

entity and did not propose a fee, its costs were considered “realistic, complete, 

convincing, and consistent with the cost of activities with similar scope and 

expected results in rural areas.” Id. at 28. 

USAID notified Fintrac of the award decision on March 18, and provided a debriefing 

on April 1. On April 4, Fintrac filed a protest with our Office, and on May 5, the 

agency took corrective action in response. Because the agency’s corrective action 

rendered the protest academic, it was dismissed on May 6. 

Reevaluation and the Second Award Decision

During the course of the reevaluation, the CO concluded that the initial scoring 

methodology of weighting the subfactors in descending order of importance was

inconsistent with the solicitation. The CO instead instructed the TEC to treat the 

subfactors as equal in weight. CO Statement at 4. Despite this change, the offerors 

were not permitted to revise their proposals. The use of the new scoring 

methodology resulted in a higher score for CNFA, and a lower score for Fintrac. 

Page 3 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
The results of the final revaluation were as follows: 

FINTRAC CNFA

Work and Milestone Plan (35 points) 30.2 33.4 

Subfactor (a) 8.52 10.06 

Subfactor (b) 10 11.67 

Subfactor (c) 11.67 11.67 

Technical Approach (25 points) 19.25 23.1 

Subfactor (a) 4.5 7.4 

Subfactor (b) 6.44 7.37 

Subfactor (c) 8.33 8.33 

Personnel (20 points) 16.0 15.2 

Corporate Capability (10 points) 9.5 9.3 

Subfactor (a) 2.0 1.81 

Subfactor (b) 2.5 2.5 

Subfactor (c) 2.5 2.5 

Subfactor (d) 2.5 2.5 

Past Performance (10 points) 9.7 8.6 

Subfactor (a) 1.36 1.07 

Subfactor (b) 1.36 1.07 

Subfactor (c) 1.36 1.07 

Subfactor (d) 1.36 1.07 

Subfactor (e) 1.43 1.43 

Subfactor (f) 1.43 1.43 

Subfactor (g) 1.43 1.43 

TOTAL (100 points) 84.7 89.6 

Proposed Cost $[deleted] $23,999,834 

Fixed Fee $[deleted] $0 

Most Probable Cost $25,687,783 $23,999,834

AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 7, 20, 38.1

 1

 The specific points awarded for each factor and subfactor, and the most probable 

cost calculations, are listed here as they appear in the revised SSD. We note that 

certain of the evaluation factor scores reflect rounding-off judgments by the agency. 

In addition, the SSD incorrectly listed the score for CNFA under subfactor (a) of the 

work and milestone plan as 10.6 points instead of 10.06 as indicated in the final TEC 

report. USAID confirms that 10.06 points is the correct score. 

Page 4 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
USAID again selected CNFA’s proposal for award, concluding its technical proposal 

was rated higher than Fintrac’s. Id. at 43. The agency noted that CNFA’s proposal 

was lower cost as compared to Fintrac, and concluded that “no quantity or 

qualitative difference was found to sufficient[ly] justify the $1,687,950 difference.” 

Id. On June 20, the agency again advised Fintrac that its proposal had not been 

selected for award, and provided Fintrac a debriefing on July 3. This protest

followed. 

DISCUSSION 

Fintrac challenges the reasonableness of USAID’s evaluation of technical and cost 

proposals, the adequacy of the agency’s discussions regarding Fintrac’s proposed 

costs, and the reasonableness of the selection decision. For the reasons discussed 

below, we find no basis to sustain the protest.

2

Evaluation and Scoring Methodology 

As an initial matter, Fintrac argues that, during the reevaluation, USAID improperly 

changed the weights applied to the technical evaluation subfactors. Fintrac argues 

that the revised scoring methodology was inconsistent with the terms of the 

solicitation. We disagree. 

As discussed above, the RFP set forth two conflicting bases for the evaluation of

technical proposals. On the one hand, it stated that the factors were listed in 

descending order of importance; on the other hand, it identified point scores for 

factors that were inconsistent with a scheme of descending weight. USAID clarified 

this ambiguity in amendment 3 to the solicitation, stating that the point scores 

established the weight for the evaluation factors. RFP amend. 3, Q&A No. 42. As 

also discussed above, USAID concluded during the corrective action that the scoring 

methodology for the technical evaluation subfactors was flawed because although 

the RFP was silent as to the weight of the subfactors, the agency had weighted them 

in descending order of importance. The CO therefore instructed the TEC to evaluate 

 2

 In pursuing this protest, Fintrac raises several collateral issues. For example, 

Fintrac argues that the TEC evaluators did not follow the agency’s instructions for 

completing individual evaluation worksheets. We think this argument lacks merit

because the record shows that the TEC reports represented the consensus of its 

members, and that the TEC reports, as well as the SSD, adequately document the 

agency’s evaluation judgments. We have reviewed all of the protester’s arguments, 

and conclude that none provides a basis for sustaining the protest. Additionally, the 

protester raised several arguments in its initial protest that were addressed by the 

agency in its report, but were not subsequently addressed in the protester’s 

comments on the agency report. We consider all such issues abandoned. See Citrus

College; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 104 at 8 n.4. 

Page 5 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
offerors’ proposals by giving equal weight to the subfactors. CO Statement at 4; 

Supp. CO Statement at 18. 

Solicitations must advise offerors of the basis upon which their proposals will be 

evaluated. Lloyd H. Kessler, Inc., B-284693, May 24, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 96 at 3. 

Contracting officials may not announce in the solicitation that they will use one 

evaluation scheme and then follow another without informing offerors of the 

changed plan and providing them an opportunity to submit proposals on that basis. 

Kumasi Ltd./Kukawa Ltd. et al., B-247975.7 et al., May 3, 1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 352 at 7. 

The RFP clearly stated that the phrase “descending order of importance” applied to

the major evaluation factors, as follows: “The following technical evaluation criteria 

shall be evaluated in descending order of importance. (a) Technical Approach, 

(b) Personnel. . . .” RFP at 96 (emphasis added). Although the solicitation initially 

contained a patent ambiguity regarding the weights accorded to the evaluation 

factors, this ambiguity was resolved in amendment 3 to the RFP. In contrast, the 

RFP was silent as to the weight of the subfactors. We have recognized where a 

solicitation does not disclose the relative weight of evaluation factors or subfactors 

in a FAR Part 15 procurement, they should be considered approximately equal in 

importance or weight. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., B-297553, Feb. 15, 2006, 2007 CPD ¶ 58 at 

6. Accordingly, we think the agency correctly decided to treat the subfactors as 

having equal weight during its reevaluation. 

Evaluation of the Offerors’ Technical Proposals 

Next, Fintrac argues that USAID’s evaluation of the offerors’ proposals was 

unreasonable under three of the technical evaluation factors: (1) technical 

approach, (2) work and milestone plan, and (3) personnel. The protester also

argues, and the agency concedes, that the scoring of CNFA’s proposal under the 

personnel evaluation factor was incorrect and resulted in an additional 0.2 points for 

the awardee for which the agency cannot account. As discussed below, we conclude 

that neither this error, nor another minor error concerning the evaluation of Fintrac 

under the technical approach factor, resulted in any prejudice to Fintrac. 

The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal or quote, including experience, is a matter 

within the agency’s discretion. IPlus, Inc., B-298020, B-298020.2, June 5, 2006, 2006 

CPD ¶ 90 at 7, 13. In reviewing a protest of an agency’s evaluation of proposals or 

quotes, including technical evaluations, our Office will examine the record to 

determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the 

stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. See

Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 

CPD ¶ 169 at 3. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment in its 

evaluation of the relative merit of competing proposals or quotes does not establish 

that the evaluation was unreasonable. C. Lawrence Constr. Co., Inc., B-287066, 

Mar. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 70 at 4. 

Page 6 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
1. Work and milestone plan 

Fintrac argues that USAID unreasonably identified a weakness in its work and

milestone plan based on a discrepancy in its proposal regarding the requirement to

assist businesses. The protester also contends that the agency unreasonably ignored 

a weakness in CNFA’s proposal. We find no merit in these arguments.

The RFP required offerors to submit a work and milestone plan to show how they 

would meet each of the contract performance requirements. Subfactor (a) of this

evaluation factor stated that offerors were required to link the plan to the 

deliverables schedule of the SOW. As described above, the SOW contained nine 

“tasks” for contract performance, each of which had a number of “requirements,” 

which in turn had a number of “standards.” Task 2 requires the contractor to assist

small and medium Haitian firms with “compet[ing] at the national and international 

level.” RFP at 25. Requirement 2.3, standard 2 of this task sets a goal that, at a 

minimum, “Five Hundred (500) business services providers identified receive 

support in management functions, marketing and operations.” Id. at 26. 

The agency identified two weaknesses in Fintrac’s proposal under subfactor (a) 

regarding requirement 1.5, and requirement 2.3; the protester challenges the agency’s 

later evaluation. In its evaluation of Fintrac’s proposal under requirement 2.3, the 

agency concluded: 

[T]here is a discrepancy in the number of Business Service Providers

offered up: in the Technical Approach text 1000 [Business Service 

Providers] will be assisted whereas in the Results Framework 

Summary Table the number is 500. Although this could be attributed

to a typo it may also mean that Technical Approach overstates results. 

AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 24. As a result, the agency assessed a weakness in 

Fintrac’s proposal in this area. 

Fintrac argues that the reference to 1,000 businesses in its proposal was merely a 

typographical error, and that USAID should have understood the proposal to mean 

500. Alternatively, the protester argues that it should not have been penalized for 

proposing to assist more business than required under the solicitation. USAID 

argues that it assessed a weakness because the protester’s proposal either 

demonstrated a lack of understanding of the requirements, or overstated the results

to be achieved during contract performance. In this regard, the agency states that 

there are not likely to be more than 500 businesses in Haiti eligible to participate in 

such an assistance program. Supp. CO statement at 8. 

We think the record here supports the evaluation. To the extent there was a 

discrepancy between the protester’s description of the number of businesses it

would assist, we do not think the agency was required to treat it as a typographical 

error to be resolved in the protester’s favor, as there was no clear indication which 

Page 7 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
figure was the correct number. Further, we think the agency could reasonably 

conclude that proposing to assist 1,000 businesses showed a lack of understanding 

of the requirements of the solicitation. 

With regard to the evaluation of CNFA’s proposal, Fintrac argues that USAID did not 

reasonably consider weaknesses in the awardee’s description of certain contract

deliverables in this area of its proposal. In fact, the agency did cite this concern in its

evaluation of CNFA’s proposal under subfactor (a) of the work and milestone factor, 

stating as follows: “A number of deliverables are not included in the revised Plan . . . 

and the proposal lacks specificity regarding the Deliverables schedule.” AR, Tab 53, 

Revised SSD, at 8. Based on this weakness, CNFA received only 10.06 out of a 

possible 11.67 points under subfactor (a). To the extent that Fintrac argues that 

CNFA should have received a lower score, the protester’s disagreement with the 

agency’s judgment provides no basis to sustain the protest. 

In sum, for this subfactor, we think that USAID reasonably identified two

weaknesses in Fintrac’s proposal, and one weakness in CNFA’s proposal. On this

record, we think that the agency’s scores were reasonable. 

 

2. Personnel 

Next, Fintrac contends that USAID’s evaluation of both offerors’ proposed personnel 

was unreasonable. The protester argues that the agency improperly downgraded its 

proposal based on the qualifications of its proposed personnel, and also failed to

consider the lack of a letter of commitment from one of CNFA’s proposed personnel. 

We find no merit to these arguments. 

USAID’s evaluation of Fintrac’s proposed personnel identified two weaknesses

concerning the experience of four proposed personnel candidates: tourism

specialist, market analyst, alliances manager, and tourism sector manager. AR, 

Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 28. The agency concluded that the resumes for these 

individuals did not demonstrate relevant experience. AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 28. 

Fintrac argues that the RFP stated that only “key personnel” would be evaluated, and 

thus these four individuals--who were not designated as “key”--should not have been 

assessed. In this regard, the protester notes that the term “key personnel” was not 

defined in the RFP, and that offerors were instructed to designate which personnel 

they deemed “key.” See RFP amend. 3, Questions and Answer No. 32. Further, 

Fintrac points out that the RFP did not require the submission of resumes for 

individuals who were not identified as key personnel. RFP at 84. Thus, although 

Fintrac submitted the resumes in question, it argues that the agency was not 

permitted to evaluate them. 

As an initial matter, we think this argument is untimely because it could have been 

raised in Fintrac’s initial protest. Instead, this contention was raised for the first 

time in the protester’s comments on the agency report. Bid Protest Regulations, 

Page 8 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2008) (protests must be filed within 10 days of date when 

protester knew or should have known of the basis for its protest). In this regard, the 

protester knew based on its debriefing that the agency found a weakness in its 

proposed personnel, and thus knew or should have known the basis for this protest 

argument. See AR, Tab 48, Fintrac Debriefing, Apr. 1, 2008, at 4. 

In any event, we have reviewed the RFP and disagree with the protester’s 

interpretation. The RFP neither explicitly states nor implies, as the protester argues, 

that only key personnel would be evaluated. Instead, the RFP at Section M states

that personnel will be evaluated as follows: 

USAID will evaluate the personnel proposed as it relates to the 

offeror’s capability in performing the tasks required under this

solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the relevant qualifications 

of the offeror’s proposed personnel as demonstrated by their 

professional capability/experience, appropriate academic credentials

and training, relevant field experience, and any other experience 

relevant to the SOW. 

RFP amend. 3, at 96. 

While Fintrac may not have been required to submit resumes for these individuals, 

we will not conclude that the agency acted improperly in reviewing them. On this 

record, we find no merit to the protester’s argument. 

With regard to the evaluation of CNFA’s proposed personnel, Fintrac argues that the 

awardee failed to provide a required letter of commitment for its proposed 

agriculture sector coordinator, a position CNFA had identified as “key.” The RFP 

required offerors to submit resumes and letters of commitment for all proposed key 

personnel. RFP at 84. 

CNFA’s initial proposal included a letter, dated April 17, 2007, from its proposed 

agriculture sector coordinator, in which he committed to serve in that position for 

the duration of the contract. AR, Tab 10, CNFA Initial Proposal, Apr. 27, 2007, at 

annex IV. When USAID conducted discussions with the offerors on September 27, 

2008, it asked for a signed statement from each individual proposed as a key 

employee reconfirming his or her availability. CNFA submitted a letter from its 

proposed agriculture sector coordinator, dated October 4, 2007, in which he 

confirmed his commitment to perform.

When USAID conducted a second round of discussions with the offerors on 

February 6, 2008, it again instructed offerors to submit updated signed statements of 

commitment from key personnel by February 15. In its final proposal revision, 

CNFA resubmitted the October 4, 2007, letter of commitment for its proposed 

agriculture sector coordinator, along with a letter from a CNFA official explaining 

that the proposed individual “has been traveling in a remote area for the past week 

Page 9 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
[and] has been unable to access e-mail/fax to return his electronic signature on the 

updated letter.” AR, Tab 39, CNFA FPR, Feb. 15, 2008, at 45. CNFA stated that it had 

“spoken extensively with [the proposed individual] by phone and he . . . reconfirmed 

his commitment to this project and intention to serve in the appointed position and 

availability to start upon contract award.” Id. The agency states that it accepted 

CNFA’s representations concerning the availability of its proposed agriculture sector 

coordinator, and did not assess any weaknesses or deficiencies concerning the lack

of a newly-signed letter. Supp. CO Statement at 19. 

Although we agree with the protester that CNFA did not submit an updated signed 

statement of commitment from this individual, Fintrac’s contention that CNFA did 

not confirm the availability of its proposed key personnel candidate elevates form 

over substance. The record shows that CNFA submitted two letters of commitment,

and stated in writing that the individual had confirmed his availability. In short, we 

see nothing unreasonable in the agency’s decision to accept CNFA’s representation 

on this matter. We also note, for the record, that Fintrac has not alleged, or 

submitted evidence to suggest, that the representation was inaccurate. 

3. Technical approach

Next, Fintrac argues that the agency unreasonably assessed a weakness in its 

proposal under subfactor (a) of the technical approach evaluation factor. The 

protester also argues that the agency unreasonably awarded CNFA’s proposal a 

higher evaluation score, despite identifying similar weaknesses in its proposal. 

The technical approach evaluation factor stated that USAID would “evaluate how 

well the offeror’s program technical approach relates” to three subfactors. RFP 

at 96. Subfactor (a) stated that offerors would be evaluated based on the following 

standard: “The technical approach as demonstrated by program strategy and 

methodology taking into account each result, requirement, standard and target, the 

rationale, any key principles for selection of strategies, activities and approaches.” 

Id. As relevant here, SOW requirement 1.2 requires the contractor to achieve the 

following result in contract performance: “Screening, identification, and testing of 

specific products based on value chain analysis leads to at least three new, nontraditional, non-agricultural products/services benefiting from increased sales and 

exports of at least 30% annually.” RFP at 23. 

In its evaluation of Fintrac’s proposal under subfactor (a), the agency identified four 

weaknesses in the following areas: SOW requirement 1.2, concerning the 

identification of non-traditional, non-agricultural value chains; requirement 2.4, 

concerning assisting Haitian firms in national and international competition; 

requirement 3.1, concerning improving the business environment; and requirement 

5.1, concerning protecting and increasing the assets of the poor. AR, Tab 53, Revised 

SSD, at 24-25. The protester challenges only the evaluation of its proposal under 

SOW requirement 1.2, and does not challenge the agency’s evaluation concerning the 

other three weaknesses. 

Page 10 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
With regard to requirement 1.2, USAID concluded that Fintrac’s proposal had a 

weakness concerning the development of non-traditional, non-agricultural value 

chains, as follows: 

The TEC found that while Fintrac had indeed finally identified three 

non-agricultural value chains, it found FINTRAC’s response equivocal 

and [found] that [it] did not make a strong and convincing case that it

had properly screened, identified and tested any of them. Each of the 

proposed value chains merited a brief description not exceeding two

paragraphs and no further text elaborating a technical approach to

support[] the value chain was provided. 

AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD at 25. 

The agency also expressed concern that one of the proposed three value chains, 

wherein farmers would build homes with Fintrac support, would be “condition[ed]

on the future success of Fintrac’s work elsewhere.” Id. In this regard, the agency 

states that the RFP required a proposed approach that must “stand on its own” 

rather than be dependant on the contractor’s continued support. AR, Tab 52, 

Revised TEC Report, at 7. 

Fintrac argues that USAID’s evaluation was unreasonable because the requirement 

to screen, identify and test value chains was a performance requirement, and that 

offerors were not required to demonstrate achievement of these results as part of 

their proposal. The agency contends that this element of its evaluation was minor 

because it was only one of several that comprised the weakness concerning 

requirement 1.2, and therefore had little or no effect on the overall competition. 

We agree with the protester that the RFP anticipated that screening and testing was 

a performance requirement, and not a requirement of the proposal. Thus, we 

conclude, there is no basis for this specific aspect of the weakness assessed in

Fintrac’s proposal. However, we also agree with the agency that this criticism was

only one element of the weakness relating to Fintrac’s proposal under requirement

1.2. In this regard, the agency also criticized Fintrac’s proposal for a home building 

value chain, and the lack of substantive detail regarding all three value chains. 

We do not think that the agency’s error in assessing a weakness for Fintrac’s 

proposal regarding screening, identification and testing of value chains prejudiced 

Fintrac. CNFA’s score for subfactor (a) was 2.9 points higher than Fintrac’s. As 

discussed above, the agency evaluation of the protester’s proposal identified four 

weaknesses, and the screening criticism was only part of one of those four. In

contrast, CNFA’s proposal had one weakness. We do not think the record here 

shows any possibility that the agency’s error affected the overall outcome of the 

competition, i.e., enables Fintrac to overcome CNFA’s 2.9 point advantage under 

subfactor (a) of the technical approach factor, or the awardee’s 4.9 point overall 

Page 11 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
advantage under the technical evaluation. In this regard, our Office will not sustain a 

protest absent a showing of competitive prejudice, that is, unless the protester 

demonstrates that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have a substantial chance of 

receiving award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 54 at 3; see

also, Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

Fintrac also argues that it was treated unequally because CNFA received a higher 

score under subfactor (a), despite the agency’s evaluation that the awardee also did 

not provide enough detail regarding requirement 1.2. In this regard, the agency 

concluded that CNFA’s proposal contained the following weakness: “Requirement

1.2 was only partially met by identifying three new non-agricultural value chains: 

textiles, transport & logistics and construction. Because the FPR lacks specificity, 

the TEC has determined that a weakness still exists.” AR, Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 9. 

We think the protester’s argument here lacks merit. As discussed above, Fintrac 

received four weaknesses under subfactor (a) of the technical approach evaluation

factor--three of which it does not challenge in this protest. CNFA, in contrast, 

received only one weakness under subfactor (a), concerning the adequacy of its

description for requirement 1.2. On this record, we think that the agency reasonably 

evaluated both offerors as lacking detail regarding their proposals for 

non-traditional, non-agricultural value chains, and we find no merit to the protester’s

argument that the two offerors should have received equivalent scores. 

4. Scoring error in CNFA evaluation 

 

Finally, Fintrac argues that USAID’s corrective action resulted in an improper 

0.2 point increase to CNFA’s proposal under the personnel factor. CNFA’s proposal 

initially received 15 points, but after the corrective action its score in this area was 

15.2 points. As the protester correctly notes, the personnel evaluation factor had no

subfactors, and was therefore not reevaluated by the agency during the corrective 

action--the purpose of which was to correct the improper weighting of the technical 

evaluation subfactors. The agency acknowledges the changed point score, and 

states that it cannot account for the 0.2 point increase to CNFA’s proposal. Supp. CO 

Statement at 19. 

Notwithstanding this error, we find no basis to sustain the protest. Given the fact

that CNFA’s proposal received 2.9 more points than Fintrac for this subfactor, and 

had an overall 4.9 point technical point advantage, we do not think this additional 

0.2 point difference--or the minor error concerning one of the four weaknesses

assessed against the protester’s proposal for subfactor (a) of the technical approach 

factor--prejudiced the protester. 

Evaluation of CNFA’s Decision Not to Propose a Fee 

Next, Fintrac argues that USAID used an undisclosed evaluation criterion in

selecting CNFA for award. In its initial protest, Fintrac argued that USAID’s 

evaluation of CNFA’s proposed costs was not in accordance with the RFP because

Page 12 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
CNFA did not propose a fee. In USAID’s response to the protest, the CO stated that

the RFP did not require offerors to propose a fee or prohibit not-for-profit entities

from submitting proposals without a fee.3

 As relevant here, the agency noted that 

although not-for-profit entities such as CNFA were not “motivated” by earning a 

profit, the agency had no concerns that such offerors posed a risk to contract 

performance in the absence of such motivation. CO Statement at 37. 

Fintrac contends that CO’s remarks indicate that the agency had a bias in favor of 

not-for-profit entities. USAID argues that the protester takes the CO’s statement 

concerning the risk posed by a non-profit entity out of context. We agree with the 

agency. The agency’s response addressed the narrow issue of whether it was

reasonable to conclude that an offeror that did not seek to earn a profit from

performing the contract could realistically perform the contract. We do not think the 

statements referenced by the protester indicate bias in favor of non-profit offerors. 

Moreover, the protester does not allege or identify any contemporaneous evaluation

or source selection documents where the alleged bias might have manifested itself.4

 

On this record, we find no merit to the protester’s arguments. 

Discussions Regarding Fintrac’s Proposed Costs

Finally, Fintrac argues that the discussions conducted by USAID regarding its

proposed costs were unequal and misleading in two areas. The protester contends

that (1) discussions were unequal because they improperly instructed Fintrac to 

increase its proposed salaries, but did not do the same for CNFA, and (2) the agency 

incorrectly instructed Fintrac to increase its costs for severance pay based on local 

Haitian legal requirements. Fintrac argues that these discussions improperly 

 3

 On this point, we agree with the agency. The RFP stated that the agency would 

evaluate offerors proposed costs as follows: “COST: The price of the proposal is the 

total estimated cost, plus fee.” RFP at 96. We see no difference between proposing a 

fee of $0, and CNFA’s proposed approach of omitting any reference to a fee. 

Furthermore, the record shows that USAID conducted a detailed cost realism

analysis, and concluded that CNFA would be able to perform the contract based on 

its proposed costs. See AR Tab 53, Revised SSD, at 18-23, 44. 

4

 To the extent that Fintrac contends that the CO Statement indicates a general badfaith intent to favor not-for-profit offerors, we find no basis for this allegation. 

Government officials are presumed to act in good faith, and a protester’s claim that

contracting officials were motivated by bias or bad faith must be supported by 

convincing proof; we will not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement 

officials on the basis of inference or supposition. Harris Enters., Inc., B-311143, 

Mar. 27, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 60 at 3. The protester offers no evidence supporting its 

claim, and its speculation as to the agency’s intentions is insufficient to support a 

finding of bad faith. 

Page 13 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
induced it to increase its proposed costs, and that absent these increases, Fintrac’s

proposed costs would have been lower than CNFA’s. For the reasons discussed 

below, we disagree; we also think certain of these assertions are untimely. 

Discussions, when conducted, must be meaningful, that is, they may not be 

misleading and must identify proposal deficiencies and significant weaknesses that 

could reasonably be addressed in a manner to materially enhance the offeror’s

potential for receiving award. PAI Corp., B-298349, Aug. 18, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 124 

at 8. 

As an initial matter, we think the protester’s arguments are wholly unpersuasive. In

its initial protest, Fintrac argued that if the agency had not misled the company into

raising its proposed salaries, the protester’s overall proposed price would have been

$24,231,505. Protest at 30. In its comments on the agency report, the protester cites 

a different figure, arguing that its overall cost would have been $24,479,725.5

 

Protester’s Comments on AR at 23. Neither amount, however, is less than CNFA’s

proposed cost of $23,999,834. On this record, even if we agreed with Fintrac--and we 

do not--we conclude that there was no possible prejudice to Fintrac based on the 

agency’s actions here. McDonald-Bradley, supra; see also, Statistica, 102 F.3d 

at 1681. 

With regard to the discussions, USAID did not, as the protester contends, instruct the 

protester to increase its proposed salaries to any particular level. Instead, the 

agency stated that it was concerned that, for certain labor categories, Fintrac had 

proposed salaries that were lower than the prevailing market rates--in some cases

only [deleted] of those rates. See AR, Tab 20, Discussions Questions for Fintrac, 

Sept. 27, 2007, attach. B, at 1. For this reason, the agency stated that it was 

concerned that “it is unlikely that suitable candidates will be attracted to field 

locations at such low salaries.” Id. at 2. Furthermore, the record shows that, 

although USAID stated that Fintrac’s proposed salaries were below the local 

prevailing wages, Fintrac’s proposal revision did not actually raise its salaries to

those levels. See AR, Tab 24, Revised Fintrac Cost Proposal, Nov. 2, 2007, Table 2, 

at 1. Moreover, the agency and intervenor both argue, and Fintrac does not dispute, 

that CNFA’s proposed salaries for positions equivalent to those identified to Fintrac 

during discussions were higher than Fintrac’s initial and revised proposed salaries. 

 5

 Fintrac does not explain why the figures listed in its protest and comments on the 

agency report differ, nor does the protester provide a detailed explanation as to how 

it calculated either amount. 

Page 14 B-311462.2, B-311462.3
With regard to the severance pay issue, we conclude that this protest argument was 

not timely raised. Fintrac argued in its initial protest that the agency’s discussions 

on September 27, 2007, misled the protester into raising its proposed personnel 

salaries. In its comments on the agency report, Fintrac raised a new argument that 

the agency’s discussions on February 6, 2008, misled the protester into increasing 

severance pay for proposed personnel. These two arguments are clearly distinct. 

Fintrac knew or should have known of the basis for its argument concerning the 

agency’s interpretation of the severance pay requirements at the time of its July 7, 

2008, protest. Specifically, the protester knew at that time that the agency’s 

interpretation regarding the severance pay issue had caused it to increase its 

proposed costs. On this record, we find that Fintrac’s allegation that the discussions 

were misleading is untimely. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). 

In sum, we see nothing in this record that supports sustaining Fintrac’s protest. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 15 B-311462.2, B-311462.3