B-294358.8; B-294358.9; B-294358.10, University Research Company, LLC, April 6, 2006

B-294358.8; B-294358.9; B-294358.10, University Research Company, LLC, April 6, 2006 TITLE: B-294358.8; B-294358.9; B-294358.10, University Research Company, LLC, April 6, 2006 BNUMBER: B-294358.8; B-294358.9; B-294358.10 DATE: April 6, 2006 ************************************************************************************ B-294358.8; B-294358.9; B-294358.10, University Research Company, LLC, April 6, 2006 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: University Research Company, LLC File: B-294358.8; B-294358.9; B-294358.10 Date: April 6, 2006 John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Tamara F. Dunlap, Esq., and David S. Stern, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter, and Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, for the protester. John E. Jensen, Esq., Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., and Orest J. Jowyk, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, for IQ Solutions, Inc., an intervenor. Mogy E. Omatete, 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. Protester's contention that agency performed an unreasonable technical evaluation when it elected not to revise previous evaluation scores as a result of corrective action limited to receiving revised proposals addressing only reproduction services is denied where the evaluation approach was consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. 2. Protester's challenge to agency's decision to make an upward adjustment to the protester's proposed costs is denied where the record shows that the adjustment was reasonably tailored to address a unique feature in the protester's cost proposal, and that if the adjustment had not been made, there was a risk that the predictive value of the cost evaluation would have been undermined. 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 agency's remedial review of reproduction costs--undertaken in response to a decision from the Court of Federal Claims--and its decision to make no changes in the technical evaluation scores as a result of the revisions made to the proposals, were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This is the third decision by our Office addressing this procurement. The agency remedial action reviewed here was undertaken after the Court of Federal Claims concluded that HHS acted arbitrarily by substituting a government estimate for the reproduction costs calculated by URC and IQ in their cost proposals; hence, the court held that the agency improperly normalized[1] those costs. University Research Co., LLC v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 500, 513 (2005). Most of the other elements of the evaluation here have been reviewed in either our prior decisions, or the prior decision of the court, and were not part of the remedial action that is the subject of this protest. We set forth below a limited overview of this procurement. The RFP here was released on December 19, 2003, and sought offers for a contract that would realign SAMHSA's health information dissemination efforts, which were previously obtained under multiple contracts. University Research Co., LLC, B-294358 et al., Oct. 28, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 217 at 2 ("University Research I"). Specifically, this solicitation includes the operation of the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information, the National Mental Health Information Clearinghouse, and certain support services for the SAMHSA Office of the Administrator. A minor part of the dissemination efforts covered by this contract involves the reproduction of health information materials. See RFP attach. 1 (Performance Work Statement). The RFP 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 an additional 36 points. RFP at 70-73.