PharmChem, Inc., B-291725.3; B-291725.4; B-291725.5, July 22, 2003

PharmChem, Inc., B-291725.3; B-291725.4; B-291725.5, July 22, 2003 TITLE: PharmChem, Inc., B-291725.3; B-291725.4; B-291725.5, July 22, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291725.3; B-291725.4; B-291725.5 DATE: July 22, 2003 ********************************************************************** PharmChem, Inc., B-291725.3; B-291725.4; B-291725.5, July 22, 2003 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. Decision Matter of: PharmChem, Inc. File: B-291725.3; B-291725.4; B-291725.5 Date: July 22, 2003 Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Hector Garcia-Santana, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, for the protester. Tenley A. Carp, Esq., and Karen Yankosky, Esq., McGuire Woods, for Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc., an intervenor. Rafael A. Madan, Esq., John L. Pensinger, Esq., and Linda Fallowfield, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's evaluation of offeror's proposal of [deleted] to staff three key personnel positions as acceptable was unobjectionable where solicitation did not prohibit proposed staffing plan, agency ensured offeror understood requirements, and agency considered performance risk. 2. Protest that contracting agency conducted inadequate and unequal discussions as between the protester and awardee is denied where record shows that agency properly tailored discussions to each offeror, and provided each the opportunity to revise its proposal. 3. Awardee's proposal of a labor rate of $0.00 for certain personnel in procurement for award of time-and-materials contract was unobjectionable where agency conducted price realism evaluation that encompassed consideration of awardee's ability to perform while furnishing the affected personnel at no cost to the government. 4. Where agency reasonably determined that offerors' proposals were technically equivalent notwithstanding protester's slightly higher rating under single technical factor, agency properly considered evaluated price as the determining factor in its *best value* determination. DECISION PharmChem, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc. (STL) under request for proposals (RFP) No. OJP-2002-R-002, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for laboratory testing and technical assistance. PharmChem challenges the technical and price evaluations and the adequacy of discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals to provide all personnel, equipment and materials necessary to support the National Institute for Justice's (NIJ) Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program. The NIJ is the research and development agency for DOJ and is authorized to conduct research, development, evaluation, and dissemination programs to improve and strenghten the systems of criminal justice programs in the United States. Tasks to be performed in support of the ADAM program include data analysis, results interpretation, and on-time delivery of data results to the NIJ and ADAM data collection contractor (DCC). The data comes primarily from the collection and analysis of voluntary and anonymous interviews and urine specimens from adult and juvenile arrestees. Each specimen will be screened for a minimum of 10 drugs. The RFP contemplated the award--on a *best value* basis--of a fixed-price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity, and time-and-materials contract for a base year, with 3 option years. Proposals were to be scored on an adjectival basis--outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable--under three factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical capability, past performance, and price. Technical capability was to be evaluated on the basis of three equally weighted subfactors: organization and management approach; technical approach/quality assurance; and staff qualifications. The non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price, but the degree of importance of price was to increase if the proposals were relatively equal. Four offerors, including PharmChem and STL, submitted proposals. The source evaluation board (SEB) rated the two firms' proposals good overall. The other two proposals were rated acceptable. STL proposed the lowest price, approximately 18 percent lower than PharmChem's. The agency subsequently resolved certain weaknesses in STL's proposal through clarifications, but did not communicate with PharmChem or the other offerors.