Ricards International, Inc. T-A INFOTEQ, B-277808; B-

Ricards International, Inc. T-A INFOTEQ, B-277808; B- BNUMBER: B-277808; B-277808.2 DATE: November 21, 1997 TITLE: Ricards International, Inc. T-A INFOTEQ, B-277808; B- 277808.2, November 21, 1997 ********************************************************************** 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. Matter of:Ricards International, Inc. T-A INFOTEQ File: B-277808; B-277808.2 Date:November 21, 1997 Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., and Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, for the protester. Richard S. Brown, Esq., and Michael Colvin, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where protester disagrees with the agency's technical evaluation of its proposal, but the record does not show that the agency's determinations lack a reasonable basis, protest allegations that the procuring agency improperly evaluated the proposal are denied. 2. Contracting agency misled the protester in discussions by informing the protester that it must use the higher indirect cost rates contained in the firm's current rate agreement, which had the effect of increasing the firm's proposed price in its best and final offer, rather than informing the protester of the agency's actual concern about the lack of support provided by the protester for the lower rates contained in the firm's initial proposal. The protest of misleading discussions is denied, however, since the record does not show that, but for the agency's misleading discussions, the protester would have had a reasonable chance of receiving the award. DECISION Ricards International, Inc. T-A INFOTEQ protests the award of a contract to B.L. Seamon & Associates, Inc. under solicitation No. NIH-NIAID-DAIDS-97-03, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for research support services to the Division of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. INFOTEQ, the incumbent contractor for these services, challenges the propriety of the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal and discussions held with the firm. We deny the protest. The streamlined electronic solicitation, issued on November 12, 1996, contemplates the award of a 5-year, cost-reimbursement, level-of-effort contract. The solicitation's statement of work explains that the required services are in the following areas: scientific meeting and conference support (e.g., the provision of planning, logistical, and technical support for meetings/conferences, including site selection and accommodations); support for a variety of non-meeting associated tasks (e.g., teleconferences and preparation/production of manuals and other documents); project management and administrative support (e.g., technical and budgetary management of multiple concurrent projects, and assurance of quality control in contract performance, including writing/editing in the preparation of scientific meeting summaries); and an orderly transition to a subsequent contractor. The solicitation advises all offerors that proposal evaluation for award will be based solely on the contents of the proposals (including evaluation of proposal responsiveness, thoroughness, and feasibility) and information gathered regarding past performance. The solicitation instructs offerors that their proposals must discuss, in more detail than previously required, how the services are to be provided, including detailed documentation of the methodologies proposed to meet the statement of work requirements, and any proposed costs (to include verifiable, factual cost or pricing data to explain proposed indirect cost rates). The solicitation provides the following technical evaluation criteria for award, listed in descending order of importance: technical competency (soundness and practicality of technical approach, adequacy of administrative framework for timely and accurate performance of services, and understanding of the project); personnel (project director and other staff); and corporate expertise, experience, facilities, and structure. In the evaluation for award, paramount consideration is to be given to technical merit (90 percent), with past performance (10 percent) and cost to be considered in the determination of which proposal is most advantageous to the government--the solicitation states that estimated cost may be the determinative factor among technically equal proposals. Initial proposals were received and reviewed, and discussions were conducted with those offerors whose proposals were included in the competitive range, including INFOTEQ and Seamon.