ATLIS Federal Services, Inc.

ATLIS Federal Services, Inc. BNUMBER: B-275065.2; B-275065.3 DATE: February 12, 1997 TITLE: ATLIS Federal Services, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:ATLIS Federal Services, Inc. File: B-275065.2; B-275065.3 Date:February 12, 1997 Richard J. Conway, Esq., and Robert J. Moss, Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, for the protester. Terrence J. Tychan, Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's contention that the agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, and the record reasonably supports the generally lower ratings assigned the protester's proposal. 2. Allegation that awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage as a result of its recent performance of another contract--to conduct a database user satisfaction survey for the same agency--is denied where there is no evidence in the record that any of the information gathered during performance of that contract conferred any advantages on the awardee. 3. Contention that two members of the technical evaluation panel, who had some official business contacts with the awardee in connection with another contract, had a conflict of interest which required mitigation or that those evaluators improperly influenced the evaluation and selection decision is denied where there is no evidence in the record to support the contention. 4. Allegation that agency's analysis of awardee's proposed costs was not reasonable is denied where the record shows that in conducting the analysis, the contracting officer primarily relied on the results of an audit report conducted by the agency's financial advisory services branch, and also conducted his own analysis which was recorded in the summary of negotiations memorandum and the best value analysis, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that the calculations in these documents are not reasonably based. DECISION ATLIS Federal Services, Inc., the incumbent, protests the award of a contract to Aspen Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. NCI-CO-61017-77, issued by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (NCI), to provide electronic information maintenance services. The protester's main contentions are that the agency improperly evaluated proposals; that Aspen had an unfair competitive advantage in this procurement; and that the agency's cost realism analysis was flawed. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued May 7, 1996, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a 5-year period of performance.[1] NCI's International Cancer Information Center (ICIC) is responsible for preparing and updating a comprehensive range of technical information products and services that is made available worldwide to individuals and organizations involved in cancer research, and other health professionals, to assist them in making treatment decisions. These products include the Physician Data Query (PDQ) database; the CancerFax and CancerNet information services; the RDCR database; and the ICIC server on the World Wide Web. The successful offeror is to provide maintenance services for all of these information products. Offerors were required to submit separate technical and business proposals. In addition to listing mandatory qualification criteria that offerors were required to meet in order to be considered for award, the RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors (percentage weight of each factor is shown in parenthesis): (1) technical approach (35); (2) personnel/staffing/management (35); (3) facilities, resources, and equipment (15); and (4) background and experience (15). In addition to evaluating proposals under these technical factors, the agency was to also conduct a risk assessment based on the past performance of those offerors whose proposals were included within the competitive range. The RFP stated that the evaluation of technical proposals was to receive paramount consideration, and that the government would make award on the basis of the proposal deemed most advantageous to the government. Aspen and ATLIS were the only two firms submitting proposals. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the proposals by assigning numerical point scores under each evaluation factor.