Worldwide Primates, Inc., B-294481, October 12, 2004

B-294481 Oct 12, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Worldwide Primates, Inc. protests the award of seven contracts by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NHLBI-PS-2003-079. Worldwide primarily argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294481, Worldwide Primates, Inc., October 12, 2004 Decision Matter of: Worldwide Primates, Inc. File: B-294481 Date: October 12, 2004 Brooke Block for the protester. Douglas Kornreich, Esq., and Doris Gibson, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where an agency reasonably eliminated the protester's proposal from the competitive range because, even after discussions, the protester failed to submit a proposal that addressed the solicitation requirements. DECISION Worldwide Primates, Inc. protests the award of seven contracts by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NHLBI-PS-2003-079. Worldwide primarily argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable was unreasonable. We deny the protest. On July 30, 2003, NHLBI issued the RFP, seeking proposals to supply non-human primates, and to provide shipping, testing, and holding services for the animals. RFP B.1. The RFP contemplated multiple awards of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts. The procurement was conducted under the procedures for evaluation of commercial items in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12. The RFP contained FAR 52.212-2(a), specifying that award would be made "to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered" and then specified weights for enumerated non-price criteria. RFP at 27-28. The RFP identified the following technical evaluation factors: demonstrated understanding of the magnitude and scope of work in the proposed technical approach (25 points); the availability, competence and experience of the proposed technical personnel directly involved in the contract (20 points); appropriateness and availability of the necessary facilities to perform the work (20 points); past performance (20 points); and proposed method of assuring the achievement of timely and acceptable delivery of animals and services (15 points). As an addendum to that provision, entitled "selection of offerors," the RFP stated as follows: Best-Buy Analysis. A final best-buy analysis will be performed taking into consideration the results of the technical evaluation, cost analysis, and ability to complete the work within the Government's required schedule. The Government reserves the right to issue an order to the best advantage of the Government, technical merit, cost, and other factors considered. RFP at 28. The RFP also required a "detailed work plan . . . indicating how each aspect of the ... work is to be accomplished," and advised inclusion of "as much detail as you consider necessary to fully explain your proposed technical approach or method." The RFP required that the technical plan include information on how the project would be organized, staffed, and managed. RFP at 29. The RFP also cautioned that [p]lans which merely offer to conduct a program in accordance with the requirements of the Government's scope of work will not be eligible for further consideration. The offeror must submit an explanation of the proposed technical approach in conjunction with the tasks to be performed in achieving the project objectives. Id. Nine firms submitted proposals. The initial proposal from Worldwide consisted of a two-page submission accompanying the government-required forms from the RFP package. Worldwide stated that "[o]ur technical plan as such is below. Since no research is required as part of the proposal, we are somewhat limited as to presenting a detailed plan since this is a straightforward purchase of primates." Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Proposal Cover Letter, at 1. The remainder of the submission, consisting of several paragraphs, identified one employee and provided several references. Id. at 1-2. In light of Worldwide's failure to provide a proposal responsive to the solicitation requirements, the agency evaluators assigned Worldwide's proposal a total score of 5 points (out of a possible 100 points). AR, Tab 4, Technical Evaluation Summary Statement, at 11. The agency determined that only two proposals were acceptable after the initial review and would be included within the competitive range.