Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, B-281681.12; B-281681.13, December 16, 1999

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, B-281681.12; B-281681.13, December 16, 1999 TITLE: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, B-281681.12; B-281681.13, December 16, 1999 BNUMBER: B-281681.12; B-281681.13 DATE: December 16, 1999 ********************************************************************** Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, B-281681.12; B-281681.13, December 16, 1999 Decision Matter of: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company File: B-281681.12; B-281681.13 Date: December 16, 1999 Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Edward C. Schweitzer, Jr., Esq., and Dennis Pryba II, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for the protester. Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., Jennifer E. McDougal, Esq., and Grady L. Shields, Esq., Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, for Bayer Corporation, an intervenor. J. Albert Calluso, Esq., John P. Patkus, Esq., and Sharif T. Dawson, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Although flaw in agency's proposal scoring methodology could have unreasonably exaggerated the significance of minimal differences among proposals, protest challenging the methodology is denied where the scoring in fact reflected the awardee's proposal's significant advantage. DECISION Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) protests the award of a contract to the Bayer Corporation under phase II of the procurement under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0200-99-R-1502, issued by the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), Defense Logistics Agency, for HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors. BMS asserts that the evaluation of proposals was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation and otherwise unreasonable. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on October 23, 1998, contemplated the award of one or two fixed-price national contracts, for an 18-month base period with 2 option years, for an estimated annual quantity of 65 million HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (cholesterol-lowering drugs, commonly referred to as statins), for use in the Department of Defense's (DOD) formulary programs and military treatment facilities. One contract was to be awarded under phase I for either atorvastatin or simvastatin; a second contract was to be awarded under phase II in the event that the addition of a second statin would yield a lower cost-efficacy ratio than would a single award. Amend. No. 0002 at 27. In this regard, the solicitation provided that "[t]he cost-efficacy of a potential second statin is calculated in conjunction with the initially-selected statin (atorvastatin or simvastatin). The cost-efficacy for the formulary combination of the two statins is then compared to the cost-efficacy of the initially-selected statin and to other statins combined with the initially-selected statin." Id. at 34. The solicitation provided for calculation of the cost-efficacy of any particular statin through a mathematical formula that considers both the drug's annual cost per patient and the efficacy of the statin in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). RFP at 31. As amended, the solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated based on the following three factors (listed in descending order of importance): cost-efficacy, evidence of effect on incidence of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarctions, and past performance. (In the event that proposals were rated essentially equal after application of these factors, the solicitation provided for consideration of the inconvenience of switching patients to the contracted statins.) Amend. No. 0002 at 29, 34; Amend. No. 0006. Under the evaluation plan, a maximum of four evaluation points were available for cost-efficacy, three for evidence of effect on incidence of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarctions, and two for past performance. With respect to cost, the RFP provided in an addendum to Standard Form 1449 (Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items) that "[f]ailure of an offeror to submit a ‘Per Tablet/Capsule' price on all of its commercially available: (i) strengths . . . may preclude the offeror from being considered for an award." RFP at 8; Amend. No. 0010. BMS, Bayer and three other offerors submitted proposals by the closing time for receipt of proposals. On May 12, DSCP issued its first request for final proposal revisions (FPR) to all five offerors. On June 10, after concluding that the final proposals submitted by two of the offerors contained deficiencies that precluded award to them, DSCP requested a second round of FPRs. Based upon its evaluation of the second FPRs, DSCP determined that Merck & Company's proposal, for simvastatin, was the most advantageous phase I offer.