Nova Research Company

Nova Research Company BNUMBER: B-270092; B-270092.2 DATE: February 8, 1996 TITLE: Nova Research Company ********************************************************************** Matter of:Nova Research Company File: B-270092; B-270092.2 Date: February 8, 1996 Thomas L. McGovern III, Esq., and Timothy L. Schroer, Esq., Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., for the protester. Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for The CDM Group, Inc., an intervenor. Mike Colvin, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Christine F. Davis, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency did not conduct misleading discussions, where the protester unreasonably interpreted agency's remarks in a manner that was inconsistent with the solicitation requirements and reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of those requirements. DECISION Nova Research Co. protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to The CDM Group, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. CSAT-95-0013, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), for the development of substance abuse treatment protocols. Nova contends, among other things, that CSAT misled it during discussions, causing Nova to introduce a material deficiency into its otherwise acceptable proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a 4-year, cost reimbursement contract. The primary purpose of the contract is the development of Treatment Improvement Protocols (TIP), which are clinical and management guidelines for the treatment of substance abuse. The TIP guidelines are developed with the assistance of clinical, administrative, and research experts assembled by the contractor. The TIPs are ultimately used by various state agencies to improve their substance abuse treatment services. Individual TIPs under the predecessor contract ranged in length from 75 to 275 pages and covered topics such as "Pregnant Substance-Abusing Women" and "State Methadone Treatment Guidelines." The statement of work (SOW) divided the contract effort into 18 tasks. Task Nos. 3 through 9 related to the primary contract objective of developing the TIPs. The contractor begins the TIP process by assembling an Advisory Committee of experts, who generate TIP topics. The RFP provided that the CSAT Government Project Officer (GPO) would approve approximately four TIP topics per year. For each of the four approved topics, the contractor writes a brief prospectus of the proposed TIP and then convenes a Resource Panel composed of federal agency representatives, who critique the prospectus and nominate experts for the consensus panel. Under Task No. 7, the contractor convenes a consensus panel, composed of roughly 15 experts who meet for up to 5 days, "[f]or each of the approximately four (4) TIP topics per year." The consensus panel develops the TIP guidelines and drafts chapters or sections for use in the TIP document. Under Task No. 8, the contractor must "[p]roduce TIP for publication by the Government Printing Office." The RFP forecast that publication of the TIP would take at least 5 months after the consensus panel adjourned, considering the time needed to complete the writing and editorial work to produce a draft TIP document, to circulate the draft document among "field reviewers" and Panel members for review and revision, to gain content-clearance from CSAT, and to prepare a camera-ready copy for publication. After the TIP is published, Task No. 9 contains a requirement for evaluating its usefulness. The RFP established a best value evaluation scheme, in which technical quality was of "paramount" importance. The RFP established five technical evaluation criteria and corresponding point-scores, as follows: (1) Understanding the Problem -- 25 points; (2) Technical Approach -- 25 points; (3) Management Plan -- 20 points; (4) Key Personnel -- 25 points; and (5) Facilities -- 5 points. The agency received six initial proposals by the May 15 receipt date, including Nova's and CDM's. Nova's low-cost proposal ($3.74 million) received the fourth-best technical score (87 points), while CDM's next low-cost proposal ($3.99 million) received the second best technical score (92.8 points). CSAT included Nova's, CDM's, and three other proposals in the competitive range. Nova, along with other offerors, proposed a constant level of effort over the 4 contract years. In its pre-negotiation memorandum, the agency questioned the validity of this approach because the new contractor would not assume any unfinished TIPs from the prior contractor and "there will unlikely be documents completed for publication in the first twelve months" of the new contract.