I.S. Grupe, Inc., B-278839, March 20, 1998

B-278839 Mar 20, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's decision not to fund the protester's proposal for a Phase II effort under a Small Business Innovation Research program procurement was not objectionable where the record supported the agency's conclusion that the protester's proposal was technically unacceptable. " was technically unacceptable and would not continue to be funded. The RFP was issued on July 10. This program was established under the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. The purpose of the work performed under Phase I is to determine the scientific or technical merit and feasibility of ideas submitted under the SBIR program. The funding vehicle for this HHS SBIR program in both Phase I and Phase II was contracts. View Decision Matter of: I.S. Grupe, Inc. File: B-278839 Date: March 20, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION I.S. Grupe, Inc. protests the decision by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), not to award it a Phase II contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. AHCPR-97-0021 for a project the firm proposed under the agency's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The protester contends that the agency improperly determined that its proposal, entitled "Internet Multimedia Cancer Patient Education System," was technically unacceptable and would not continue to be funded. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on July 10, 1997, under the SBIR program. This program was established under the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 638 (1994), which requires certain federal agencies, including HHS, to establish SBIR programs. Under these programs, the agencies reserve a statutory percentage of their research and development budgets for award to small business concerns for research or research and development through a three-phase process. The purpose of the work performed under Phase I is to determine the scientific or technical merit and feasibility of ideas submitted under the SBIR program; under Phase II (awarded on the basis of Phase I results), to identify the potential for yielding a product or process of continuing interest to the agency; and under Phase III (involving private capital), to pursue commercial applications of the research or development. The funding vehicle for this HHS SBIR program in both Phase I and Phase II was contracts, rather than cooperative agreements or grants. The RFP provided the following five Phase II evaluation factors and respective weights: (1) the degree to which the Phase I objectives were met and feasibility demonstrated--25 percent; (2) the scientific/technical merit of the proposed Phase II research, including the adequacy of the objectives for addressing the problem/opportunity--35 percent; (3) the qualifications of the principal investigator, supporting staff, and consultants--20 percent; (4) the potential of the proposed research for technological innovation--15 percent; and (5) the adequacy and suitability of the facilities and research environment--5 percent. Under the RFP, cost reimbursement contracts would be awarded to some or all offerors submitting technically acceptable proposals. The three firms, including the protester, which previously had been awarded Phase I contracts, submitted Phase II proposals in response to this RFP. The basis for the protester's proposal was the completion of an interactive multimedia educational system for cancer patients which would allow an individual patient to determine the materials relevant to his/her medical problem and treatment. Proposals were evaluated by a panel of six individuals in accordance with the referenced evaluation scheme. Of relevance to this protest, one of the evaluators (whom the agency designated as evaluator No. 5) was a medical doctor and the chief executive officer of a media firm specializing in medical information for consumers. Each panel member initially assigned points to each offeror's proposal and provided narratives of the strengths and weaknesses in these proposals. The evaluators then met as a group, discussed each proposal, and modified individual scores and narratives in light of these discussions. The average of the individual scores for an offeror's proposal became the consensus score for that proposal. The evaluators concluded that the protester's proposal, which was accompanied by a videotape showing "not the prototype product, but only a view of the prototype product," and which would not allow the viewer to actually interact with the educational system depicted, was technically unacceptable (consensus score--55.3 points out of a possible 100).