B-299859, Alpha Genesis, Inc., September 12, 2007

B-299859 Sep 12, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alpha Genesis, Inc. (AGI) protests the award of a contract to Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (CRL) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIAID-DIR-07-52, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for the maintenance of a free-range, island-based breeding colony of Rhesus monkeys and the transportation of the animals to NIAID and other facilities. AGI challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of its and the awardee's technical proposals and alleges that the awardee's proposal contains material contingencies that made its acceptance by the agency improper. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299859, Alpha Genesis, Inc., September 12, 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: Alpha Genesis, Inc. File: B-299859 Date: September 12, 2007 Richard Moorhouse, Esq., Dorn C. McGrath, III, Esq., and Sean M. Connolly, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. Daniel J. Kelly, Esq., and Gary J. Campbell, Esq., McCarter & English, LLP, for Charles River Laboratories, Inc., an intervenor. Krystal A. Jordan, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's technical evaluations is denied where the record supports the reasonableness of the evaluations and does not support the protester's allegation regarding inadequate discussions. 2. Protest that awardee's proposal contains material contingencies that make it improper for the agency to accept it is denied, where the record shows that the alleged contingencies concern a lease that the contractor was to obtain post-contract award and the acquisition of leased property for which the awardee had obtained a letter of commitment. DECISION Alpha Genesis, Inc. (AGI) protests the award of a contract to Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (CRL) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIAID-DIR-07-52, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for the maintenance of a free-range, island-based breeding colony of Rhesus monkeys and the transportation of the animals to NIAID and other facilities. AGI challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of its and the awardee's technical proposals and alleges that the awardee's proposal contains material contingencies that made its acceptance by the agency improper. We deny the protest. For 27 years, the protester and its predecessor company, as the incumbent contractor, have maintained a government-owned colony of Rhesus monkeys, used by NIAID, NIH, and other organizations for research purposes. The subject colony, which numbers approximately 3,000 monkeys, resides on MorganIsland, an ecologically sensitive barrier island off the coast of South Carolina that has been leased to the protester by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR).[1] Although each is individually marked by tattooing or other means, the monkeys freely breed and roam in the wild. The contractor ensures the proper feeding and health of the animals and captures and transports to research facilities roughly 500 monkeys annually. The contractor also keeps extensive records of the colony, tracking births, deaths, gender, age, and other statistical and demographic data. Because the colony is island-based, maintenance requires the year-round transportation, by boat and barge, of personnel, food, and equipment. The agency issued the RFP for a cost-reimbursement contract on December 22, 2006 with a proposal due date, after amendment, of February 1, 2007. The RFP called for the submission of separate business and technical proposals. The business proposal was to –contain sufficient information to allow the Government to perform a basic analysis of the proposed cost or price of the work.— RFP at 45. The technical proposal was to contain as much detail as an offeror considered –necessary to fully explain [its] proposed technical approach or method.— Id. at 40. The RFP specified that the technical evaluation committee (TEC) would use the following evaluation criteria when reviewing the offerors' technical proposals: Technical Capability Understanding of the scope of work and technical ability as evidenced by contractor's Facility Development Plan, Program Development Plan, and Colony Maintenance Plan. Availability and adequacy of facilities and equipment. Personnel Qualifications Qualifications and experience of proposed personnel. . .