Cygnus Corporation

B-275181 Jan 29, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's contentions that the awardee failed to advise the agency that its project director would not be available at the start of contract performance and used an improper "bait and switch" practice by allowing other employees to substitute for the proposed project director in the first 3 weeks of contract performance is denied where the record shows that the proposal clearly advised the agency that the project director was a contingent hire. Allegation that agency evaluation of protester's best and final offer (BAFO) was unreasonable is sustained where the record as a whole supports the conclusion that the agency did not meaningfully evaluate certain key material in the BAFO. Will & Emery. View Decision Matter of: Cygnus Corporation File: B-275181 Date: January 29, 1997 * Redacted Decision New and independent grounds of protest included in a protester's comments on the agency report must independently meet the timeliness requirements of the General Accounting Office's Bid Protest Regulations; extensions of time for filing comments do not waive the timeliness requirements. Protester's contentions that the awardee failed to advise the agency that its project director would not be available at the start of contract performance and used an improper "bait and switch" practice by allowing other employees to substitute for the proposed project director in the first 3 weeks of contract performance is denied where the record shows that the proposal clearly advised the agency that the project director was a contingent hire; the awardee did, in fact, hire the proposed project director as promised; and the project director began work within 3 weeks of contract award. Allegation that agency evaluation of protester's best and final offer (BAFO) was unreasonable is sustained where the record as a whole supports the conclusion that the agency did not meaningfully evaluate certain key material in the BAFO. Attorneys DECISION Cygnus Corporation protests the award of a contract to Caliber Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 105-96-1648, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for the operation and management of the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. Cygnus argues that the agency conducted an unreasonable evaluation of the proposals and improperly selected Caliber for award. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND As stated above, the RFP here sought a contractor to operate the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, which provides information to the public on the subject of infant adoption and the adoption of children with special needs. The RFP, reserved for small business participation, anticipated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base year with two 1-year options to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government. Section M-1 of the RFP advised potential offerors that the quality of the technical proposal and the past performance of the offeror would be more important than proposed costs. As set forth below, section M-2 identified five technical evaluation subfactors and the following allocation of points among the subfactors: 1. Understanding of the Statement of Work 15 points 2. Quality of Technical Approach 30 points 3. Corporate Experience 15 points 4. Staff Qualifications 20 points 5. Adequacy of Manpower, Resources, and Management Plan 20 points TOTAL 100 points All but one of these subfactors included as many as seven evaluation criteria, which will be discussed, as relevant, in greater detail below. The criteria were not scored separately. With respect to past performance, the RFP advised that this factor would not be scored, but would be influential in determining the relative merits of an offeror's proposal; with respect to proposed costs, the RFP advised that the government would review the costs for realism and evaluate offers based on the total evaluated costs for the base period and both option years. Six proposals were received by the closing date of July 9, 1996. Upon review by a technical evaluation panel, three of the proposals were evaluated as technically unacceptable, while the remaining three proposals--including those submitted by Cygnus and Caliber--were evaluated as acceptable and were included in the competitive range. Both oral and written discussions were held with the competitive range offerors, and best and final offers (BAFO) were received on September 20. Upon evaluation of each offeror's BAFO, the evaluation panel revised the scores given initially.