B-299307.4; B-299308.4, Panacea Consulting, Inc., July 27, 2007

B-299307.4; B-299308.4, Panacea Consulting, Inc., July 27, 2007 TITLE: B-299307.4; B-299308.4, Panacea Consulting, Inc., July 27, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299307.4; B-299308.4 DATE: July 27, 2007 *************************************************************** B-299307.4; B-299308.4, Panacea Consulting, Inc., July 27, 2007 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: Panacea Consulting, Inc. File: B-299307.4; B-299308.4 Date: July 27, 2007 Lars E. Anderson, Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Peter A. Riesen, Esq., and Keir X. Bancroft, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Lawrence E. Carr, Esq., Dana G. Theriot, Esq., and Justin T.Banford, Esq., Carr, Morris & Graeff, PC, and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Winston & Strawn, LLP, for Systems Integration & Development, Inc., an intervenor. Herman J. Narcho, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency's evaluation and source selection decisions are unreasonable is sustained where record lacks any meaningful explanation for evaluation scores and source selection decisions. DECISION Panacea Consulting, Inc. protests the issuance of two task orders to Systems Integration and Development, Inc. (SID) under solicitation Nos. FY07FA1-64079E446-0001 (solicitation 446) and FY07FA3-64079E448-001 (solicitation 448), issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for, respectively, project management support services and core research and development support services. Panacea asserts that the agency made errors in its evaluation of submissions and in its selection decisions. We sustain the protest. The solicitations contemplated the issuance of task orders under the successful vendor's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, to perform various professional services on an as-needed basis.[1] For purposes of preparing their price submissions, vendors were given a list of specific labor positions and a fixed number of hours for each performance period. Vendors were to calculate prices based on the number of hours specified in the solicitations, multiplied by the hourly rates they proposed for each position. The evaluation was to be on a "best value" basis, considering price and two non-price factors. Under solicitation 446, submissions were to be evaluated based on the qualifications of the proposed staff evaluation factor (70 percent of the non-price evaluation weight), and understanding of the statement of work (SOW), relevant experience, capabilities, and approach evaluation factor (30 percent of non-price weight). Overall, the non-price and price factors were weighted at 55 and 45 percent of the total evaluation, respectively. Under solicitation 448, 75 percent of the non-price evaluation weight was allotted to the qualifications of proposed personnel evaluation factor, with 25 percent allotted to the understanding of the SOW, relevant experience, capabilities, and approach evaluation factor. The non-price and price factors were weighted at 70 and 30 percent of the total evaluation, respectively. The agency received numerous responses to the solicitations and, after evaluation thereof, issued the two task orders to SID, finding that SID's submissions represented the best value. After learning of the selection decisions, Panacea protested to our Office. We developed the record in those protests, and thereafter conducted an "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference.[2] During the ADR, the cognizant GAO attorney advised the parties that the protests appeared to be meritorious, insofar as the record showed that the agency had improperly weighted the price and technical considerations in assigning the numeric evaluation scores on which the source selection decisions were based, and that the record contained no narrative support for the scores. Accordingly, the GAO attorney advised the agency that it could address these concerns by reevaluating submissions in a manner consistent with the terms of the solicitations, and preparing narrative materials to explain the basis for the point scores assigned and the source selection decisions made. In response to the ADR, the agency advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action by rescoring the submissions in a manner consistent with the terms of the solicitations, and by documenting its scoring. We dismissed Panacea's protests as academic (B-299307 et al., Mar.