Biospherics Incorporated, B-278508.4; B-278508.5; B-278508.6,

Biospherics Incorporated, B-278508.4; B-278508.5; B-278508.6, BNUMBER: B-278508.4; B-278508.5; B-278508.6 DATE: October 6, 1998 TITLE: Biospherics Incorporated, B-278508.4; B-278508.5; B-278508.6, October 6, 1998 ********************************************************************** 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:Biospherics Incorporated File: B-278508.4; B-278508.5; B-278508.6 Date:October 6, 1998 Steven L. Briggerman, Esq., and Grace Bateman, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for the protester. Alan S. Weitz, Esq., Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C., for Logistics Applications Inc., an intervenor. Michael Colvin, Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests are sustained where there is no documentation of the agency's evaluation of final revised proposals, that is, there is no information in the record regarding proposal strengths and weaknesses after discussions, and as a result, the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation upon which the award decision was made cannot be determined. DECISION Biospherics Incorporated protests the award of a contract to Logistics Applications Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. AHCPR-98-0001, issued by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR), Department of Health & Human Services, for the operation of a publications clearinghouse. Biospherics challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and the agency's selection decision. We sustain the protests. The RFP, issued on June 5, 1997 as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP sec. L.2., at 62. The RFP described warehousing and distribution (fulfillment) tasks and automated call center and database management function tasks. The RFP required the contractor to store and distribute AHCPR publications; to maintain and manage AHCPR's automated mailing/inventory control systems; and to manage the storage and shipping of AHCPR exhibits. The RFP stated that the "Government reserves the right to make an award to the best advantage of the Government, cost and other factors considered." RFP sec. M.1.A., at 80. The RFP contained the following technical evaluation factors and respective weights: (1) understanding the problem--25 points; (2) technical approach--25 points; (3) management plan--20 points; (4) key personnel--20 points; and (5) facilities--10 points. RFP sec. M.2.A.--E., at 81-82. The RFP stated that a peer review technical committee would consider offerors' proposals in light of these technical evaluation factors and make a recommendation concerning the technical acceptability/unacceptability of each proposal. RFP sec. M.2., at 81. Offerors whose proposals were determined technically acceptable would then be evaluated for past performance, weighted at 25 points, based on the firm's performance under existing and prior contracts for similar services. RFP sec. M.2.F., at 82. The RFP stated that technical proposals would receive paramount consideration in the selection of the awardee. RFP sec. M.1.A., at 80. Cost would only become a significant factor if two or more proposals were determined approximately technically equal. Id. Three firms, including Biospherics and LAI, submitted proposals by the amended closing date of July 11, 1997. Under the prior contract, LAI was the prime contractor performing the warehousing and distribution tasks, and Biospherics was LAI's subcontractor performing the call center and database management tasks. For the current procurement, LAI submitted a proposal to basically perform all required tasks, and Biospherics submitted a proposal as the prime contractor teamed with another firm which would serve as a subcontractor for the warehousing and distribution tasks. The three proposals were evaluated by a peer review panel made up of six individuals. This panel determined that two proposals, including that of Biospherics, were technically acceptable, and that LAI's proposal was technically unacceptable. Following discussions with Biospherics and the other offeror and the submission of revised proposals, the agency awarded a contract to Biospherics. LAI subsequently protested to our Office, contending among other things that the peer review panel was biased because two of the six reviewers were former employees of Biospherics and had failed to disclose in their conflict of interest certificates their prior employment relationships with Biospherics. The agency took corrective action by convening a new peer review panel to reevaluate proposals.