Eagle Design & Management, Inc.

B-275062 Jan 21, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest concerning the evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation had a reasonable basis and was consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria. Protest of best value analysis is denied where the protest is predicated on the assumption that the underlying technical and price evaluations were erroneous. The record shows that the evaluation results were reasonable. The OAM was created to facilitate the evaluation of alternative medical treatments such as homeopathic medicine. OAM's responsibilities include establishing an alternative medicine information clearinghouse and providing a database of information and resources that will be readily available to researchers. View Decision Matter of: Eagle Design & Management, Inc. File: B-275062 Date: January 21, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Eagle Design & Management, Inc. protests the award of a contract, on the basis of initial proposals, to Herner & Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-96-P(AH)-0012, issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a total small business set-aside for the operation of a public clearinghouse for NIH's Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), and the development of a scientific and research database for OAM. Eagle contends that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal by failing to evaluate Eagle's alternate proposal in accordance with the RFP and by applying undisclosed evaluation factors, and that the agency conducted a flawed best value analysis. We deny the protest. The OAM was created to facilitate the evaluation of alternative medical treatments such as homeopathic medicine, physical manipulation, and mind- body therapies. OAM's responsibilities include establishing an alternative medicine information clearinghouse and providing a database of information and resources that will be readily available to researchers, practitioners, and the general public. The RFP, issued on April 12, 1996, sought proposals for the furnishing of services in two principal areas, the operation of a public clearinghouse for OAM and the development of a scientific and research database. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed hourly price requirements contract for 1 year with four 1-year options. The RFP advised offerors that their technical proposals would be evaluated separately in the two main areas, and that their proposals should be severable in that regard since, although the agency stated that it preferred to make a single award, split awards might be made. Offerors were instructed to provide pricing based upon the assumption that a firm would receive award for only one section, but that an offeror also could provide a formula for alternate pricing in the event of award for both sections. Offerors were further advised that while the RFP contained an estimated staffing plan, they could present alternative staffing plans, but that if a firm did so the estimated hours set forth in the RFP would be used to normalize the proposals for price comparison purposes. The RFP stated that the technical portion of the proposals was the most important consideration in making the award, and that award without discussions was contemplated. A best-buy analysis was to be performed that would take into consideration the results of the technical evaluation, cost analysis, and ability of the contractor to complete the work within the government's required schedule. Award was to be made on the basis of the proposal providing the best value to the government, all factors considered. The technical evaluation factors and subfactors (worth a total of 130 points) were listed in the RFP in descending order of importance, and are summarized as follows: 1. Technical Approach (45 points) 2. Staffing and Personnel (40 points) 3. Corporate Experience/Past Performance (35 points) A. Relevant experience (20 points) B. Past performance (15 points) 4. Facilities (10 points) Cost was worth 35 points. Proposals were received from six firms by June 4, 1996. The technical proposals were evaluated by two separate technical evaluation committees, which determined that only the Eagle and Herner proposals were technically acceptable. The results of the evaluation were as follows: CLEARINGHOUSE FIRM TECH PTS PRICE TOTAL Eagle [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Herner [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] PUBLICATION/DATABASE FIRM TECH PTS PRICE TOTAL Eagle [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Herner [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Both firms provided pricing for a combined award; however, the assumptions regarding the total number of hours were vastly different. Eagle proposed approximately [deleted] fewer hours than did Herner, and both proposals were substantially below the government's estimate.