NWT, Inc.; PharmChem Laboratories, Inc., B-280988; B-

NWT, Inc.; PharmChem Laboratories, Inc., B-280988; B- BNUMBER: B-280988; B-280988.2 DATE: December 17, 1998 TITLE: NWT, Inc.; PharmChem Laboratories, Inc., B-280988; B- 280988.2, December 17, 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:NWT, Inc.; PharmChem Laboratories, Inc. File:B-280988; B-280988.2 Date:December 17, 1998 Rand L. Allen, Esq., Philip J. Davis, Esq., Phillip H. Harrington, Esq., and Kevin J. Maynard, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for NWT, Inc.; and Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Drew W. Marrocco, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, for PharmChem Laboratories, Inc. Edward L. Williamson, Esq., and Lynette R. Miserez, Esq., Department of the Army, 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. Allegation that agency used non-cost factors to select a commercial proposal upon which to base a cost comparison pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 is untimely where request for proposals specifically stated that technical considerations are more important than cost, and protest was filed after the closing date for receipt of proposals. 2. Allegation that agency could not lawfully initiate cost comparison pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 because agency allegedly failed to satisfy threshold conditions is untimely where protester either knew or should have known of the basis for its protest before the closing date for receipt of proposals, and protest was not filed prior to that time. 3. Allegation that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated the proposals in accordance with the evaluation factors announced in the solicitation and record reasonably supports overall technical ratings. 4. Protest of agency determination based on cost comparison conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 that required services could be performed more economically in-house is denied where protester has not shown that agency conducting the cost comparison failed to comply with the applicable procedures in selecting in-house performance over contracting. DECISION NWT, Inc. and PharmChem Laboratories, Inc. protest the decision of the Department of the Army, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76, that it would be more economical to provide drug testing for the Army National Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard in-house at the Tripler Army Medical Center, Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory, rather than to contract for these services under request for proposals (RFP) No. DASW01-97-R-0034. NWT argues that the Army's evaluation of technical proposals was unreasonable. NWT also maintains that the agency improperly failed to select its proposal as the one upon which to base its cost comparison, and contends that the Army's conduct of the cost comparison was improper. PharmChem argues that the Army improperly failed to follow the requirements for comparison of a "best value" commercial offer with the in-house offer contained in OMB Circular No. A-76, and the Revised Supplemental Handbook (March 1996) (the Supplement). PharmChem also challenges the cost comparison on several grounds. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The agency synopsized the solicitation in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on November 29, 1996, announcing that the RFP was being issued as part of a cost comparison pursuant to OMB Circular No. A-76. The RFP, issued on March 19, 1997, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for 1 year with up to four 1-year option periods to provide drug testing services for the Army National Guard and Coast Guard (ANG/CG). RFP sec. 52.216-1, and at 2-9. The required services include analysis of urine samples for drugs of abuse, compilation and reporting of test results, and litigation support. RFP, Attachment 1, Statement of Work (SOW). The RFP contained the clause found at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec.