CDIC (75N93019R00022)

Case: B-419254 Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : National Institutes of Health Protester: CDIC Date: 2021-01-11 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-419254,B-419254.2 Jan 11, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CDIC, Inc., a small business located in Fort Worth, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Council Rock Consulting, Inc., a small business located in North Bethesda, Maryland, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 75N93019R00022, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for administrative services in support of the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program (NBBTP). The protester contends the agency conducted an unreasonable cost realism evaluation and also asserts that Council Rock engaged in a "bait and switch" with respect to several key personnel, including a former government official who was barred from performing on the contract. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:  CDIC, Inc. File:  B-419254; B-419254.2 Date:  January 11, 2021 Jonathan T. Cain, Esq., and Justin Nahama, Esq., Fisher Broyles, LLP, for the protester. Jonathan D. Perrone, Esq., Whitcomb Selinsky, P.C., for Council Rock Consulting, Inc., the intervenor. Anthony E. Marrone, Esq., and Kevin Misener, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest asserting that agency did not reasonably adjust the awardee’s indirect costs as part of its cost realism evaluation is denied where agency reasonably adjusted the costs using the audited rates of a contractor performing similar work. 2.  Protest asserting that awardee engaged in a “bait and switch” of proposed key personnel is denied where the protester has not shown that the awardee did not reasonably expect to provide the proposed personnel. DECISION CDIC, Inc., a small business located in Fort Worth, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Council Rock Consulting, Inc., a small business located in North Bethesda, Maryland, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 75N93019R00022, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for administrative services in support of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program (NBBTP).  The protester contends the agency conducted an unreasonable cost realism evaluation and also asserts that Council Rock engaged in a “bait and switch” with respect to several key personnel, including a former government official who was barred from performing on the contract. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 11, 2019, the agency issued the solicitation, as a small business set-aside, seeking services, personnel, and resources to oversee, manage, and improve the components of the NBBTP Intramural Research Training Award, a 2-year biosafety fellowship.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3.1, RFP at 4.  The RFP anticipated the award of a cost-reimbursement, fixed-fee contract with a 5-month base period and four 12-month option periods.  Id. at 14.  The solicitation contemplated that award would be based on a best-value tradeoff considering the following factors, in descending order of importance:  technical, cost, and past performance.  Id. at 80.  The RFP provided that the technical and past performance evaluation factors, when combined, were more important than cost.  Id.  The technical factor were comprised of four criteria:  corporate experience (weighted 40 percent), project management and execution plan (weighted 30 percent), key personnel and other personnel qualifications (weighted 20 percent), and quality control plan (weighted 10 percent).  Id. at 81. For the cost factor, the RFP anticipated that the agency would evaluate reasonableness and realism, with the realism analysis to be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1(d).  Id.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...