BNUMBER:  B-265789
DATE:  December 12, 1995
TITLE:  Novel Pharmaceutical, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Novel Pharmaceutical, Inc.

File:     B-265789

Date:     December 12, 1995

Richard F. Prentis, Esq., Stubbs, Cole, Breedlove, Prentis & Biggs, 
for the protester.
Mary Ann Bryant, Department of Health and Human Services, for the 
agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging evaluation of awardee's proposal on the basis that 
evaluation incorrectly assumed that proposed director was a corporate 
officer with the authority to bind the corporation is denied where 
awardee specifically stated on a video tape required to be submitted 
as part of the technical proposal that the individual was a corporate 
officer with authority to bind the company and nothing in the record 
contradicts the representation on the tape. 

DECISION

Novel Pharmaceutical, Inc. (NPI) protests the Department of Health and 
Human Services's (HHS) award of a contract to Priority One Services, 
Inc. (POS), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 95-99(n), for the 
care and maintenance of research animals at the Chamblee and 
Lawrenceville Animal Care Facilities at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention in Georgia.  The protester challenges the 
evaluation of the technical proposals.

We deny the protest.

The RFP provided for award to the offeror submitting the proposal 
found to represent the best value to the government based upon 
consideration of technical and cost factors, which were of 
approximately equal importance.  The solicitation required offerors to 
submit as part of their technical proposal:  (1) a written discussion 
of corporate experience and staffing and key personnel; and (2) a 
video tape presentation, in which offerors were to respond to 
specified sample tasks by discussing their understanding of the 
problem and their proposed staffing and key personnel, technical 
approach and program management.  Three proposals were received by the 
closing time, all of which were included in the competitive range.  
After holding discussions with the offerors, HHS requested best and 
final offers (BAFO).  NPI's BAFO, with a proposed price of 
$3,974,685.50, received a technical score of 84 points, while POS's, 
with a proposed price of $3,192,052, received a technical score of 88 
points.  HHS made award to POS on the basis that its proposal 
represented the best value to the government.

NPI challenges the evaluation of POS' proposal under the corporate 
experience  criterion (under the technical factor) on the basis that 
the evaluation assumed that POS' proposed program (division) director 
was a corporate officer with the authority to bind the corporation 
when, in fact, the proposed director allegedly was only a consultant.
  
In reviewing an evaluation, we will not reevaluate a technical 
proposal; rather, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure 
that it was reasonable.  Standard Testing and Eng'g Co., B-256644, 
July 11, 1994, 94-2 CPD  17.  

The evaluation of POS' proposal under the corporate experience 
criterion was reasonable.  POS submitted as part of its technical 
proposal a resume for the proposed individual and an organizational 
chart, both of which identified the individual as the proposed 
director.  In addition, POS specifically stated on the video tape 
submitted as part of its technical proposal that the individual was a 
corporate officer with authority to bind the company.  Although the 
technical evaluation panel (TEP), based upon its review of POS' 
written proposal, initially identified as a weakness the fact that 
POS' "[p]roposal does not demonstrate that [the individual] is a 
corporate official of the company," and accordingly decreased POS' 
score by 6 points under the corporate experience criterion, after 
viewing the video tape, the TEP raised POS' score by 6 points under 
this factor.  Since nothing in the record contradicts POS' 
representation on the video tape, we have no basis to question the 
agency's evaluation.

NPI also challenges the evaluation of its own proposal under the 
corporate experience criterion on the basis that it improperly 
received no credit for proposing its president and chief executive 
officer (CEO).  The TEP consensus report identified as a strength 
under the corporate experience criterion that NPI had proposed its 
president and CEO, who "has 23 years of experience in laboratory 
animal care and in chemical safety evaluation."  Thus, there is also 
no merit to this aspect of the protest. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States