Abt Associates Inc., B-295449; B-295449.2, March 2, 2005

Abt Associates Inc., B-295449; B-295449.2, March 2, 2005 TITLE: Abt Associates Inc., B-295449; B-295449.2, March 2, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295449; B-295449.2 DATE: March 2, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Abt Associates Inc. File: B-295449; B-295449.2 Date: March 2, 2005 Dean M. Dilley, Esq., and Michael J. Schaengold, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for the protester. Garry S. Grossman, Esq., and Aaron M. Forester, Esq., Schiff Hardin LLP, for National Opinion Research Center, an intervenor. Elise Harris, Esq., Alex M. Azar II, Esq., and Bruce R. Granger, Esq., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that discussions were not meaningful due to agency's failure to identify several weaknesses is denied where it is clear that protester was not prejudiced; assigning protester's proposal additional evaluation credit in the areas involved would leave its technical proposal rated lower than awardee's, and awardee's evaluated cost was significantly lower than protester's. 2. Technical evaluation of protester's proposal was reasonable where initial proposal failed to provide sufficient information regarding key personnel's expertise in a particular area and availability of consultants, and agency reasonably determined that revised proposal failed to provide sufficient information to address its concerns. 3. Technical evaluation of awardee's proposal regarding experience with [deleted] was reasonable where, in response to discussion questions on this matter, awardee provided additional information to demonstrate sufficient [deleted] and other comparable experience of various key personnel. 4. Cost realism evaluation of awardee's proposal was unobjectionable where record shows that agency reviewed cost elements of initial proposal, obtained revised cost proposal, and had it reviewed by Defense Contract Audit Agency for realism and possible understatement; source selection authority considered the information in making her award determination; and protester has not shown that upward cost adjustments were warranted. DECISION Abt Associates Inc. protests the award of a contract to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2004-N-01001, issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services, for the planning and conducting of health-related surveys. Abt challenges the evaluation of the technical proposals and the evaluation of NORC's cost proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, which contemplated the award of a cost-reimbursement plus fixed-fee contract, sought proposals to plan and conduct the National Immunization Survey (NIS) and State and Local Area Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) for data years 2005-2007, with options to continue data collection for 2008-2009.[1] The NIS is a random digit dialing (RDD) telephone survey designed to obtain quality and timely data pertaining to the immunization coverage of pre-school children across the United States. SLAITS is a broad-based, ongoing surveillance system available at the state and local levels for tracking and monitoring the health and well-being of children and adults. SLAITS uses the same sampling frame as the NIS, and immediately follows the NIS in selected households, using its sample for efficiency and economy. The contractor is to design and conduct quarterly/annual surveys to collect data from the families of age-eligible children in RDD interviews; collect data from medical providers reported for those children; combine the information from the responding providers and families to produce improved vaccination estimates; perform descriptive analyses of the data collected; and prepare and document computer files of the survey data. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of six factors--methodology and approach (50 of 100 available points); personnel/staff expertise and experience (25A points); company experience, past performance and capability (10 points); management plan (10 points); facilities and equipment (5 points); and cost. Cost was to be evaluated for cost realism. Technical strength was considered more important than cost and award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the "best value" to the government. Three offerors, including Abt and NORC, submitted proposals, which were evaluated by the technical evaluation panel (TEP). Based on the results of the initial evaluation, Abt's and NORC's proposals were included in the competitive range. The agency conducted written discussions with Abt and NORC, and obtained a final proposal revision (FPR) from each.