Computer Information Specialist, Inc., B-293049; B-293049.2, January 23, 2004

Computer Information Specialist, Inc., B-293049; B-293049.2, January 23, 2004 TITLE: Computer Information Specialist, Inc., B-293049; B-293049.2, January 23, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293049; B-293049.2 DATE: January 23, 2004 ********************************************************************** Computer Information Specialist, Inc., B-293049; B-293049.2, January 23, 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: Computer Information Specialist, Inc. File: B-293049; B-293049.2 Date: January 23, 2004 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., and David E. Fletcher, Esq., Piper, Rudnick, for the protester. Mike Colvin, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated proposals is sustained where record shows that agency*s evaluation conclusions with respect to protester*s proposal were either unrelated to the evaluation criteria or without a factual basis, and agency failed to note two deficiencies in awardee*s proposal. DECISION Computer Information Specialist, Inc. (CIS) protests the award of a contract to Open Technology Group, Inc. (OTG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NLM-03-101/SAN, issued by National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH) to acquire telecommunications support services at the agency*s Bethesda, Maryland campus. CIS maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest. The solicitation contemplated the award of a requirements contract with fixed hourly rates to perform telecommunications support services for a base year, with four 1-year options. The RFP advised that the agency intended to make award on a *best value* basis, with several non-price factors, collectively, being significantly more important than price. RFP at 66. The non-price criteria (and their point values, out of 100 possible points) were: qualifications and availability of personnel (30 points), past performance (30 points), technical competence (20 points), and management approach (20 points). RFP at 66-67. For pricing purposes, offerors were to submit fully-loaded, fixed hourly rates for various labor categories, RFP at 62; evaluated prices were derived by multiplying the proposed hourly rates by estimated quantities stated in the solicitation. RFP at 51. The agency received numerous proposals and, after an initial evaluation, established a competitive range of four firms, including the protester and the awardee. Agency Report (AR), exh. 6, at 1-3. The agency conducted discussions with the competitive range offerors and solicited and obtained revised proposals. The final evaluation results were as follows: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Offeror |Technical Score |Estimated Price |Acceptability | |--------------+-------------------+-------------------+-----------------| |OTG |[deleted] |[deleted] |[deleted] | |--------------+-------------------+-------------------+-----------------| |Offeror A |[deleted] |[deleted] |[deleted] | |--------------+-------------------+-------------------+-----------------| |Offeror B |[deleted] |[deleted] |[deleted] | |--------------+-------------------+-------------------+-----------------| |CIS |[deleted] |[deleted] |[deleted] | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ AR, exh. 18 at 2. On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency made award to OTG, the firm submitting what the agency deemed the highest-ranked, lowest-priced proposal. Following a debriefing, CIS filed this protest in our Office, asserting that the agency misevaluated both its and the awardee*s proposals. In reviewing protests against an agency*s evaluation of proposals, we do not reevaluate the proposals. Rather, we consider only whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. CWIS, LLC, B-287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 119 at 2. On the basis of the record here, we find the agency*s evaluation conclusions with respect to both proposals unreasonable. CIS The evaluation record is limited, consisting solely of narrative materials prepared by the evaluators. Of five evaluators, four prepared only cursory narrative comments to support their scoring of the initial or revised CIS proposals.