National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., B-281074.2, January

B-281074.2 Jan 11, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Are denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. Contention that agency's method for allocating points for cost placed undue emphasis on technical merit and allegedly resulted in a misleading evaluation is denied where the scoring scheme used by the agency accurately reflects the relative weights of the technical and cost factors announced in the solicitation and there is no evidence that the agency's approach resulted in a distorted or misleading evaluation. Cost was worth 15 percent. Award was to be made on the basis of the proposal determined to be the best value to the government. NTL argues that DOJ failed to give it credit for specific strengths in its proposal and improperly concluded that there were certain weaknesses in its proposal. View Decision Matter of: National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc. File: B-281074.2 Date: January 11, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc. (NTL) protests the award of a contract to PharmChem Laboratories, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. OJP-97-R-010, issued by the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for technical assistance and inmate drug urinalysis. NTL primarily argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on April 14, 1998, contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity/indefinite-delivery contract for a base period with up to three 1-year option periods. RFP Sec. H-1, L.4, L.6. The RFP contemplated issuing task orders under the proposed contract on a fixed-price basis, time and materials basis, or a combination thereof. RFP Sec. H-1. The RFP required offerors to submit proposals in three separate volumes (technical/management in volume I, cost proposal in volume II, and representations and certifications in volume III) and contained detailed instructions on the type of information to be provided in each volume. RFP Sec. L.10, L.11, L.13. Section C-100.4 of the RFP described in detail the specific work areas, divided into seven distinct tasks, for which the successful offeror would be responsible under the contemplated contract. Section M of the RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors (weight of each factor shown in parentheses): organization/management (20 percent); technical approach (20 percent); staff qualifications (20 percent); and past performance (25 percent). Cost was worth 15 percent. The RFP stated that the technical areas would be considered more significant than cost in the award decision. RFP Sec. M-4. Award was to be made on the basis of the proposal determined to be the best value to the government. RFP Sec. M-4. Three firms, including the protester and the awardee, responded to the RFP by the time set on May 29 for receipt of proposals. A source evaluation board (SEB) evaluated initial proposals by assigning numerical scores under each technical evaluation factor and calculating a total score for each proposal. The agency conducted discussions with all three firms and requested best and final offers (BAFO) from all three. The SEB rescored technical proposals based on BAFOs, and the contracting office provided cost scores, /1/ with the following results: Offeror Tech. Score Cost Score Cost PharmChem 78.00 14.55 $8,091,229 NTL 65.30 15.00 7,850,280 Offeror A 73.30 13.00 9,061,894 Post-Negotiation Memorandum, Aug. 28, 1998. Based on these results, the SEB recommended that PharmChem be awarded the contract. The contracting officer agreed with the SEB's recommendation and, on August 28, awarded PharmChem the contract. This protest followed a telephonic debriefing by the agency. /2/ Protester's Contentions NTL primarily argues that DOJ misevaluated its proposal in several respects. Specifically, NTL argues that DOJ failed to give it credit for specific strengths in its proposal and improperly concluded that there were certain weaknesses in its proposal. The protester asserts that as a result of these alleged errors, the agency's cost/technical tradeoff decision was flawed. Discussion Our Office will not engage in an independent evaluation of proposals nor make an independent determination of their relative merits. Litton Sys., Inc., B-239123, Aug. 7, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 114 at 9. Rather, we review the agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Sensis Corp., B-265790.2, Jan. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 77 at 6. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render the evaluation unreasonable. ESCO, Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 450 at 7. Based on our review of the record, including the SEB's narrative in support of its evaluation, we conclude that the numerical ratings assigned NTL's proposal are reasonably supported.