University Research Company, LLC, B-294358.6; B-294358.7, April 20, 2005

University Research Company, LLC, B-294358.6; B-294358.7, April 20, 2005 TITLE: University Research Company, LLC, B-294358.6; B-294358.7, April 20, 2005 BNUMBER: B-294358.6; B-294358.7 DATE: April 20, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: University Research Company, LLC File: B-294358.6; B-294358.7 Date: April 20, 2005 John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Edmund M. Amorosi, Esq., SophiaA R. Zetterlund, Esq., and Erin R. Karsman, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter & Allen, and Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., and Karen D. Powell, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., John E. Jensen, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., and Orest J. Jowyk, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, for IQ Solutions, Inc., an intervenor. Mogy E. Omatete, Esq., and Douglas Kornreich, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging selection official's treatment of concerns raised by agency project officers, under provisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Acquisition Regulation which anticipate that selection officials will receive input from agency project officers in addition to the input received from a traditional evaluation panel, is denied where the selection official's award decision document acknowledges receipt of the project officers' views (which recommended award to the protester), makes reasonable changes in the selection analysis in response to those concerns, and, in some cases, makes no change because the selection official reasonably decides to adopt the views of the evaluation panel on matters more appropriate for evaluator review. 2. The principle that selection officials are not bound by the recommendations or evaluation judgments of lower-level evaluators applies equally to evaluation input received from project officers in procurements conducted under HHS procedures; HHS selection officials are no more bound by the views of agency project officers than they are by the views of agency evaluators. 3. Protester's contention that agency past performance evaluation was unreasonable because the agency did not distinguish between degrees of relevance in evaluating each offeror's past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria; there is no per se requirement that an agency weight differently the experience ratings given each offeror based on an assessment of the relative relevance of the offeror's prior contracts, and there is no requirement that incumbents be given extra credit for their incumbent experience. 4. Challenge to agency's review of cost realism is denied where the record shows that the agency had a reasonable basis for the adjustments it made. DECISION University Research Company, LLC (URC) protests a decision by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to reselect IQ Solutions, Inc., for the award of a contract pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 277-04-6091, issued for the operation of the SAMHSA Health Information Network. URC argues that the technical evaluation, the assessment of past performance, and the cost realism review were unreasonable. URC also challenges the adequacy of the selection official's decision not to adopt certain assessments of these proposals made by HHS project officers. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Our Office sustained an earlier protest by URC challenging the initial selection of IQ to perform this work. University Research Co., LLC, B-294358 et al., Oct. 28, 2004, 2004 CPD PA 217. The contract here realigns SAMHSA's health information dissemination efforts, which were previously performed under multiple contracts. Specifically, this solicitation includes the operation of the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI), the National Mental Health Information Clearinghouse (NMHIC), and certain support services for the SAMHSA Office of the Administrator. As indicated in our earlier decision, the RFP was issued on December 19, 2003, was set aside for small businesses, and anticipated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base period of 1 year followed by four 1-year options. RFP at 1, 56. Section M of the RFP advised that "[a]lthough technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, past performance and cost/price are also important to the overall contract award decision." RFP at 70. The RFP also identified four technical evaluation criteria (totaling 100 points) and advised that past performance would be worth 36A points. RFP at 70-73.