B-298590; B-298590.2; B-298590.3, General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc., November 15, 2006

B-298590; B-298590.2; B-298590.3, General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc., November 15, 2006 TITLE: B-298590; B-298590.2; B-298590.3, General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc., November 15, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298590; B-298590.2; B-298590.3 DATE: November 15, 2006 ***************************************************************************************** B-298590; B-298590.2; B-298590.3, General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc., November 15, 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: General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. File: B-298590; B-298590.2; B-298590.3 Date: November 15, 2006 Lawrence Z. Lorber, Esq., Mark J. Biros, Esq., Stephen D. Solomon, Esq., James F. Segroves, Esq., Meredith C. Bailey, Esq., and Rachel F. Glickman, Esq., Proskauer Rose LLP, and Gilbert J. Ginsburg, Esq., Law Office of Gilbert J. Ginsburg, for the protester. David R. Hazelton, Esq., Roger S. Goldman, Esq., Donald M. Remy, Esq., Kyle R. Jefcoat, Esq., and Joshua K. Chandler, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, and Carole S. Ungvarsky, Esq., McKesson Corporation, for McKesson Specialty Distribution LLC, an intervenor. Daniel Meron, Esq., Dana J. Petti, Esq., and Elise Harris, Esq., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency conducted discussions with eventual awardee, to determine whether its proposal met go/no-go requirement, is denied where solicitation did not preclude agency from conducting discussions regarding the requirement, and agency subsequently conducted discussions with all offerors. 2. Protest that agency's efforts to reach consensus among evaluation panelists constituted improper "pressure" is denied where agency's final evaluation ratings are reasonably supported by record, and protester has not identified any substantive flaw in the evaluation of final proposal revisions. DECISION General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. (GIV) protests its proposal's exclusion from the competitive range by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2006-N-08248, for vaccine stockpile management and distribution under the Vaccines for Children Act, 42 U.S.C. sect. 1396s (2000). GIV asserts that evaluators were improperly pressured to change their initial evaluations, and that CDC conducted improper discussions with the eventual awardee, in order to allow it to pass a go/no-go evaluation, but failed to conduct meaningful discussions with GIV regarding its proposed price. We deny the protest.[1] On November 1, 2005, CDC issued the RFP, seeking proposals to manage a consolidated supply of vaccines under the Vaccines for Children Act, which provides federally-purchased vaccines for administration to children who meet certain criteria.[2] RFP at 6. The RFP indicated that the contractor would be responsible for filling an estimated 47,000 shipments initially, increasing to an estimated 260,000 shipments annually.[3] RFP at 8. The RFP provided that each proposal would first be evaluated on the adequacy of the offeror's information technology "Systems Security Plan." RFP amend. 5, at 22. Specifically, the RFP required offerors to respond to various questions regarding security controls, including security of computer information systems. The RFP further provided that the offerors' responses would be pre-screened on a "go/no-go" basis, and stated that "proposals that do not pass this first level of screening will not be further considered in the Source Selection process." RFP amend. 5, at 22. The RFP also provided that proposals evaluated as acceptable under the go/no-go requirement would be evaluated qualitatively on four technical criteria, which were "soundness of technical approach" (30 points), "personnel/management plan" (25 points), "organizational experience" (25 points), and "facilities" (20 points). Lastly, the RFP specified that "technical merit and other non-cost factors"[4] were of equal importance to price. RFP amend. 7, at 4. Three offerors, including GIV and McKesson Specialty Distribution LLC (McKesson), submitted proposals by the February 21, 2006 deadline specified in the RFP. After an initial review of the proposals, the evaluators determined that McKesson's proposal had provided inadequate responses to a significant number of the system security plan questions by responding "N/A," "Unclear," "No," or by leaving the question unanswered. On March 7, CDC asked McKesson to "clarify" its responses.