PharmChem, Inc., B-292408.2; B-292408.3, January 30, 2004

PharmChem, Inc., B-292408.2; B-292408.3, January 30, 2004 TITLE: PharmChem, Inc., B-292408.2; B-292408.3, January 30, 2004 BNUMBER: B-292408.2; B-292408.3 DATE: January 30, 2004 ********************************************************************** PharmChem, Inc., B-292408.2; B-292408.3, January 30, 2004 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-292408.2; B-292408.3 Date: January 30, 2004 Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., Hector Garcia-Santana, Esq., and Renee C. Macri, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, for the protester. John Peterson for Kroll Laboratory Specialists, the intervenor. Roberta M. Echard, Esq., Demetria T. Carter, Esq., and Dinah Stevens, Esq., Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a negotiated procurement for urinalysis drug testing services that provided for a cost/technical tradeoff basis for award under which technical merit was significantly more important than price, agency reasonably awarded a contract to the significantly higher-priced awardee where the agency found, based upon the protester*s performance of its incumbent contract and Department of Health and Human Services test reports of the protester*s laboratory, that protester presented more significant performance risks than the awardee. DECISION PharmChem, Inc. protests the award of contract to Kroll Laboratory Specialists under request for proposals (RFP) No. USCA-03-R-0029, issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for urinalysis drug testing services. PharmChem challenges the agency*s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of three indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, fixed‑price contracts to conduct urinalysis drug testing services for United States Probation Offices and Pretrial Services Offices in the East, Midwest, and West regions of the United States. Offerors were permitted to submit one proposal for a single region, in which the offeror was located, and were informed that *[t]his shall result in three separate contract awards based upon the regions.* RFP S: M.9. This protest concerns the award for the Midwest region. A detailed statement of work described the services to be provided. Among other things, the contractors were required to perform drug testing, provide supplies, comply with reporting and confidentiality requirements, and provide testimony preparation and presentation. The contractor was also required to maintain a quality control program that ensured *accuracy over every aspect of specimen handling and processing; analytical procedures; reporting of results; turnaround time; equipment maintenance, internal security; data management; and other measures taken to ensure the integrity of the testing program.* RFP S: C.28. In addition to describing their quality control measures, offerors were directed to do the following: Provide copies of all Federal, state, local and/or private proficiency testing program results for the three years preceding the date of the Request for Proposal. Provide the names and addresses of each proficiency review team, as well as the dates for which the proficiency rating(s) were compiled. Provide copies of the previous two HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Certification inspection critiques and ensuing correspondence.[1] RFP S: L.3.1. The RFP provided for a cost/technical tradeoff basis for award. Specifically, offerors were informed that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose technically acceptable proposal reflected the best overall value to the government, and that this determination would be made by *comparing differences in the value of quality of services, methodology operations and experience with differences in cost to the Government.* RFP S: M.2.a. The RFP provided that proposals would first be evaluated for compliance with mandatory requirements, then judged for technical excellence based upon the following technical evaluation criteria, in descending order of importance: (1) additional technical capability; (2) past experience/past performance; and (3) personnel qualifications/organization. RFP S: M.4. Offerors were informed that technical excellence was more important than price. RFP S: M.9.