Computer Information Specialist. Inc. ( CIS ) filed a protest of the award of a contract to Open Technology Group. Inc. ( OTG ) . CIS responded to a petition for proposals ( RFP ) No. NLM-030101/SAN by the Department of Health and Human Services for telecommunications support services at the agency’s Bethesda. Maryland installation. The solicitation specified a demands contract with fixed hourly rates for a basal twelvemonth with four 1-year options. The bureau intended to present the contract based on “best value” with several non-price standards as the most to a great extent leaden factors. Proposals were to include fully-loaded. fixed hourly rates for labour classs. The bureau received legion proposals and established a competitory scope of four houses after initial rating. The scope included CIS every bit good as OTG the eventual awardee. Following the contract award to OTG ; CIS underwent an bureau debrief and later filed a protest asserting that both its proposal and the proposal of OTG were misevaluated.
Agencies are required to measure proposals based entirely on the rating factors identified in the solicitation. Furthermore. harmonizing to Federal Acquisition Regulations. they must adequately document the grounds for their rating decisions ( FARÂ§ 15. 308 ) . GAO recommended to the bureau was to. at a minimal reevaluate both proposals to determine if they were evaluated based on the rating factors and to find if equal principle were articulated.
Decisions ( Holdings )
Anthony H. Gamboa. General Counsel wrote the recommendation. The protest was sustained. Reasoning ( Rationale ) GAO concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services misevaluated the proposals of both CIS and OTG. contract awardee. In add-on. they found that the agency’s misevaluation was damaging to CIS. “since there is a sensible possibility that. but for the agency’s mistakes. Commonwealth of independent states might hold been selected for award notwithstanding its higher monetary value. “
No dissenting sentiment was published with GAO’s determination.
GAO analyzed the proposals from both CIS and OTG against the RFP’s stated rating standards. The Department of Health and Human Services’ beginning choice squad consisted of five judges. In the instance of the proposal by CIS. the initial rating criticized the proposal for non offering forces that met all of the solicitation minimal forces experience demands. CIS revised their proposal to bring around this lack. In farther rating. four of the five judges scored this country higher than the initial proposal. However. the 5th judge scored the proposal dramatically otherwise. In the first rating. merely casual notes were provided to back up decisions. In the 2nd rating. most judges still provided limited support. However. the 5th judge provided remarks.
Many of the remarks were either inaccurate or held non relation to rating standards. With respect to the OTG proposal. GAO determined that the solicitation failed to run into two of the rating standards and should non hold been accepted in the competitory scope. It was besides recommended that the bureau end the contract awarded to OTG for the convenience of the authorities and do award to the house found to be in line for award. Furthermore CIS was to be reimbursed all costs associated with the protest to include legal fees.