BNUMBER:  B-275065.2; B-275065.3
DATE:  February 12, 1997
TITLE:  ATLIS Federal Services, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:ATLIS Federal Services, Inc.

File:     B-275065.2; B-275065.3

Date:February 12, 1997

Richard J. Conway, Esq., and Robert J. Moss, Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro, 
Morin & Oshinsky, for the protester.
Terrence J. Tychan, Department of Health & Human Services, for the 
agency.
Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protester's contention that the agency improperly evaluated 
proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated 
in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, and the 
record reasonably supports the generally lower ratings assigned the 
protester's proposal.

2.  Allegation that awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage as 
a result of its recent performance of another contract--to conduct a 
database user satisfaction survey for the same agency--is denied where 
there is no evidence in the record that any of the information 
gathered during performance of that contract conferred any advantages 
on the awardee.

3.  Contention that two members of the technical evaluation panel, who 
had some official business contacts with the awardee in connection 
with another contract, had a conflict of interest which required 
mitigation or that those evaluators improperly influenced the 
evaluation and selection decision is denied where there is no evidence 
in the record to support the contention.

4.  Allegation that agency's analysis of awardee's proposed costs was 
not reasonable is denied where the record shows that in conducting the 
analysis, the contracting officer primarily relied on the results of 
an audit report conducted by the agency's financial advisory services 
branch, and also conducted his own analysis which was recorded in the 
summary of negotiations memorandum and the best value analysis, and 
there is no basis in the record to conclude that the calculations in 
these documents are not reasonably based.

DECISION

ATLIS Federal Services, Inc., the incumbent, protests the award of a 
contract to Aspen Systems Corporation under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. NCI-CO-61017-77, issued by the National Institutes of 
Health, National Cancer Institute (NCI), to provide electronic 
information maintenance services.  The protester's main contentions 
are that the agency improperly evaluated proposals; that Aspen had an 
unfair competitive advantage in this procurement; and that the 
agency's cost realism analysis was flawed.

We deny the protests.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued May 7, 1996, contemplated the award of a 
cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a 5-year period of performance.[1]  
NCI's International Cancer Information Center (ICIC) is responsible 
for preparing and updating a comprehensive range of technical 
information products and services that is made available worldwide to 
individuals and organizations involved in cancer research, and other 
health professionals, to assist them in making treatment decisions.  
These products include the Physician Data Query (PDQ) database; the 
CancerFax and CancerNet information services; the RDCR database; and 
the ICIC server on the World Wide Web.  The successful offeror is to 
provide maintenance services for all of these information products.

Offerors were required to submit separate technical and business 
proposals.  In addition to listing mandatory qualification criteria 
that offerors were required to meet in order to be considered for 
award, the RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors 
(percentage weight of each factor is shown in parenthesis):  (1) 
technical approach (35); (2) personnel/staffing/management (35); (3) 
facilities, resources, and equipment (15); and (4) background and 
experience (15).  In addition to evaluating proposals under these 
technical factors, the agency was to also conduct a risk assessment 
based on the past performance of those offerors whose proposals were 
included within the competitive range.  The RFP stated that the 
evaluation of technical proposals was to receive paramount 
consideration, and that the government would make award on the basis 
of the proposal deemed most advantageous to the government.

Aspen and ATLIS were the only two firms submitting proposals.  A 
technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the proposals by assigning 
numerical point scores under each evaluation factor.  Based on the 
results of the initial evaluation, the contracting officer considered 
both proposals in the competitive range; held discussions with both 
firms; and requested and received best and final offers (BAFO).  The 
TEP rescored proposals based on BAFOs, with the following results 
(proposed costs includes options):

           Offeror     Points      Proposed Costs

             Aspen    [DELETED]      $9,829,432

             ATLIS    [DELETED]   [DELETED]
Based on those results, the contracting officer awarded the contract 
to Aspen on September 30.  These protests followed a debriefing by the 
agency.

PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS

ATLIS contends that the agency improperly failed to evaluate proposals 
in accordance with the evaluation criteria announced in the RFP.  
ATLIS also argues that the awardee had an unfair competitive advantage 
in the procurement as a result of having recently completed another 
contract for NCI.  The protester also challenges the agency's realism 
analysis of Aspen's proposed costs.

DISCUSSION

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

ATLIS contends that the TEP's narrative evaluations do not support the 
generally lower numerical scores assigned ATLIS's proposal, 
particularly under the "technical approach" and 
"personnel/staffing/management" evaluation factors.  According to the 
protester, the narrative evaluations of its proposal for its technical 
approach and personnel are superior to Aspen's, but its proposal 
received lower numerical scores under those factors than Aspen's 
proposal.

In reviewing a protest challenging an agency's technical evaluation, 
we examine the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation was 
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.   Abt 
Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  223.  Based on 
our review of the record here, we find that the evaluation of 
proposals was reasonable and in accordance with the criteria announced 
in the solicitation.  Below, we discuss a representative sample of the 
protester's arguments in support of our conclusions.

Technical Approach

The purpose of the contract is to provide maintenance services for all 
electronic information products produced by NCI's ICIC.  These 
products include the PDQ database, the CancerFax and CancerNet 
information services, the RDCR database, and the ICIC server on the 
World Wide Web.  The RFP's statement of work (SOW) described in detail 
the maintenance services to be provided for each database, giving 
prominence to the services related to maintaining the PDQ database.  
Those services include data collection, data analysis, abstracting, 
writing, indexing, keying, proofing, tracking, and marking documents 
using a version of a Standardized Generalized Markup Language (SGML).  
The PDQ database contains up-to-date information about cancer, 
including treatment, screening, and prevention.  The ICIC creates and 
maintains the NCI user version of the PDQ which is available on-line 
and via the Internet from the ICIC, the National Library of Medicine, 
and through numerous information vendors worldwide.  The PDQ, along 
with the other databases, is updated monthly.

The record shows that following the initial evaluation, the TEP 
identified several weaknesses in ATLIS's proposal under the technical 
approach evaluation factor and generated several discussion questions 
directly related to those weaknesses.   Those weaknesses included 
ATLIS's proposed document tracking system; the firm's approach to 
responding to inquiries concerning information in ICIC products and 
services; training plan; and access to and assessing updates on the 
latest advances in technology.  The TEP reevaluated ATLIS's proposal 
based on its responses to these items and generally concluded that 
overall, rather than improving the proposal, the responses minimally 
weakened the proposal, resulting in a decrease in its overall score 
under the "technical approach" evaluation factor.

With respect to document tracking, for example, the TEP concluded that 
ATLIS continued to propose a paper tracking system and offered no 
suggestions for improving document tracking methods.  Although ATLIS 
offered additional details on its training plan and how it would 
respond to inquiries concerning the ICIC products, the evaluators 
concluded that the responses had no impact on the overall proposal.  
Similarly, with respect to assessing and updating the latest advances 
in technology, the reviewers concluded that ATLIS's response indicated 
a lack of understanding of the place of technology in its work.  One 
reviewer noted that the activities ATLIS described seemed out of focus 
and disorganized, and another evaluator noted that ATLIS did not fully 
explain its approach.

In another area evaluated under the "technical approach" factor, the 
TEP found that ATLIS had proposed staff that had taken courses in 
"SGML" and "HTML" language formats, but that the protester did not 
discuss how that experience would be used to place information on the 
World Wide Web.  The TEP concluded that ATLIS had not offered 
convincing evidence that it understood the issues related to the World 
Wide Web task, and that staff experience in HTML and web site 
development was not sufficiently documented.

The TEP was unanimous in noting that although ATLIS had provided more 
detail in response to discussion questions, ATLIS had not 
significantly enhanced its proposal.  One evaluator stated that 
ATLIS's proposal demonstrated that the firm failed to understand the 
needs of ICIC and failed to propose an approach to maintain a high 
quality presence on the information superhighway.  The TEP concluded 
that ATLIS did not seem to understand the implications of staffing and 
the special needs of the audiences that would be reached with new 
developments in information technology.  The TEP concluded that 
ATLIS's responses to the discussion items did not significantly 
improve its proposal, and, in fact, led to generally lower scores that 
initially assigned under this factor.

In addition to the identified weaknesses under the technical approach 
factor, the TEP recognized that ATLIS had been the incumbent for 
several years performing similar services.  As such, the record shows 
that the TEP expected that, as the incumbent knowledgeable with all 
aspects of the requirements, ATLIS would propose new and innovative 
approaches.  However, in addition to the several weaknesses remaining 
under the "technical approach" factor following discussions, the TEP 
specifically noted that ATLIS proposed no significant improvements to 
the processes used to accomplish the requirement.

The protester's argument that the TEP's narrative description of its 
proposal did not support its lower technical score is not supported by 
the record.  The TEP concluded that given the current and anticipated 
environment of shrinking budgets and increased workloads it was not 
feasible to continue to maintain large, complex information systems 
such as those contemplated by the contract, without the benefit of 
up-to-date technological innovations and creativity, and downgraded 
ATLIS's proposal accordingly under this factor.  In fact, as already 
explained, the record shows that overall, the responses ATLIS provided 
in its BAFO actually weakened the proposal, resulting in a lower score 
under this factor.

ATLIS argues that the TEP deviated from the stated evaluation criteria 
because "innovation" and "creativity" were not listed as evaluation 
factors.  We have reviewed each instance in the record where the TEP 
considered lack of innovation or creativity a weakness in ATLIS's 
proposal and find the evaluation to be reasonable.  Such assessments 
are an integral part of a technical evaluation that considers, among 
other things, the offerors' understanding of the technical 
requirements, and the quality of the specific approaches proposed.   
University Research Corp., B-253725.4, Oct. 26, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  259.  
There is nothing improper about the evaluators' comments made in this 
context.

With respect to the awardee's proposal, contrary to the protester's 
assertions, the TEP identified several aspects of Aspen's proposal 
which were considered strengths which reasonably support the generally 
higher scores assigned that firm's proposal under the "technical 
approach" factor.  For instance, the TEP found that Aspen demonstrated 
a thorough understanding of the PDQ database and the mechanisms the 
ICIC uses to disseminate the information contained in that database.  
Aspen also proposed an extensive [DELETED] the mission of the NCI and 
the project.  The TEP found this [DELETED] a strength as it would 
enable employees to better understand the implications of their 
functions, as well as the structure and goals of the project.

In contrast to [DELETED] streamline the performance of specific tasks 
and to ensure the quality of the information in the database.  In 
addition, Aspen proposed to have the technical processing manager work 
closely with the project officer and with other NCI staff to 
anticipate changes to the PDQ menu structure.  The TEP concluded that, 
overall, Aspen had strengthened its proposal by providing technical 
solutions that demonstrated the firm's ability to solve a problem 
creatively, resulting in slightly higher technical scores from those 
initially assigned under this factor.  We have reviewed the record in 
light of the protester's arguments and find no basis to object to the 
evaluation of proposals under this factor.

Personnel/staffing/management

The RFP listed certain key positions and described "highly desired" 
qualifications of the individuals proposed for each.  Staff proposed 
to fill the position of "information specialist," for example, were to 
have a Master of Science in a biomedical or health discipline, and 
should have demonstrated experience abstracting and preparing highly 
technical information; experience translating highly technical 
information into lay terms; and experience in information 
dissemination and retrieval, including the Internet and other new 
technologies.

The TEP identified two areas in ATLIS's proposal that remained weak 
following discussions.  First, of the staff ATLIS proposed, it was 
unclear which individuals would be responsible for maintaining and 
developing materials for use by patients and by the general public 
(i.e., the information specialist functions).  Second, the TEP was 
also concerned with the lack of experience and expertise of staff in 
using emerging technologies for disseminating information.

With respect to which individuals would be responsible for maintaining 
and developing materials, the reviewers concluded that the additional 
information ATLIS provided in response to discussion questions was not 
relevant or responsive to the question.  None of the staff ATLIS 
proposed were health educators or had patient education backgrounds.  
With respect to the use of emerging technologies, two evaluators 
thought that ATLIS's response actually weakened its proposal.  In this 
regard, ATLIS presented a list of accomplishments by its staff, but 
the TEP concluded that "few are entirely relevant to the question."

Contrary to the protester's allegations, the TEP found that several 
weaknesses remained in ATLIS's proposal including a "deficit in the 
area of knowledge of the Internet and emerging technologies"; a lack 
of staff familiarity with the World Wide Web and other technologies; 
and "little significant education or experience [in its proposed 
staff] in writing documents to provide patients with cancer 
information."[2]  In view of the "highly desired" personnel 
qualifications specifically listed in the RFP, and the purpose of the 
contract, we think that the TEP's concerns adequately support the low 
rating assigned ATLIS's proposal in this area.  We have reviewed the 
record in light of the protester's allegations and find that the lower 
scores earned by ATLIS's proposal are reasonably supported.[3]

UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

On September 30, 1995, under an agreement between the agency and Aspen 
unrelated to the instant RFP, NCI issued a work order for Aspen to 
perform a satisfaction survey of the users of the PDQ database.  Under 
that order, Aspen was to obtain information about the users of the 
database (i.e., characterize the users); determine how the information 
in the database is being used; survey users' satisfaction with the 
information in the database; and measure user satisfaction with 
retrieval methods.  Aspen was to provide monthly progress reports to 
NCI which were to include a description of the activities completed 
during the reporting period and activities planned for the ensuing 
period.  Aspen's work related to the PDQ user survey spanned several 
months, culminating in a draft and a final report which Aspen 
submitted to NCI in October and December 1996, respectively.

Several business meetings took place between Aspen and NCI officials 
between October 1995 and the end of February 1996, related to the PDQ 
user satisfaction survey.  Attendees at those meetings included Ms. 
Bonnie Harding and Dr. Anne Thurn, both of whom were also members of 
the TEP that evaluated proposals submitted under this RFP.

ATLIS alleges that Aspen gained an unfair competitive advantage in 
this procurement because, as a result of its work on the PDQ user 
satisfaction survey, Aspen had access to information not available to 
the other offerors.  According to the protester, Aspen was able to 
incorporate this information into its winning proposal.  In addition, 
the protester maintains that Aspen's meetings with Dr. Thurn and Ms. 
Harding created a situation where Aspen discussed with two of the 
evaluators which areas of the PDQ were important and which areas of 
the RFP would be stressed in the evaluation.

Contracting agencies are responsible for reviewing potential conflicts 
of interest posed by relationships between evaluators and offerors in 
order to ensure impartiality in the evaluation and to preserve the 
integrity of the procurement process.  See  SeaSpace Corp., 
B-252476.2, June 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  462, recon. denied, B-252476.3, 
Oct. 27, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  251.  Where, as here, a protester asserts 
that an evaluator was improperly influenced or biased because of his 
past experiences or relationships, we will examine both the nature of 
the relationship, and whether the evaluator exerted improper influence 
in the procurement on behalf of the awardee, or against the protester.  
E.J. Richardson Assocs., Inc., B-250951, Mar. 1, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  185; 
Charles Trimble Co., B-250570, Jan. 28, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  77; George A. 
Fuller Co., B-247171.2, May 11, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  433.  Here, we 
conclude that the prior involvement of Ms. Harding and Dr. Thurn with 
Aspen in relation to the PDQ satisfaction survey does not present a 
conflict of interest requiring mitigation.

Our Office held a hearing at which both Dr. Thurn and Ms. Harding 
testified as to their prior involvement with Aspen and the nature of 
the information gathered from the PDQ user satisfaction questionnaire.  
Dr. Thurn and Ms. Harding testified that the purpose of the task order 
issued to Aspen was to help NCI determine who uses the PDQ database; 
which sections of the database are used most often; which sections are 
most useful; and the general satisfaction with PDQ as a cancer 
information resource.  Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 10 and 55.  Both 
witnesses explained that the PDQ survey and the contract contemplated 
by the RFP differ in scope.  For instance, Dr. Thurn explained that 
the survey looked at the PDQ database from the outside, i.e., from the 
user's viewpoint and did not include any questions about specific 
data, the responses to which could then be used to suggest how the 
database could be changed.  Tr. at 11-12.  According to Dr. Thurn, the 
RFP contemplated a contract to maintain the database current, having 
"nothing to do with how the end user perceives the data."  Tr. at 12.  
Ms. Harding's testimony was consistent with Dr. Thurn's.  Tr. at 56.

With respect to the information gathered from the survey itself, Dr. 
Thurn testified that Aspen's proposal did not include any information 
which could have been gleaned from the survey results.  Tr. at 14.  
Dr. Thurn further testified that Aspen submitted its draft report with 
the results of the survey in October, after the TEP had completed its 
evaluation of BAFOs.  Tr. at 14-15.  Both witnesses on this issue 
testified that to their knowledge, no member of the TEP took any of 
the results of the PDQ user survey into account in evaluating the 
competing proposals, Tr. at 16-17, 58, or discussed any of Aspen's 
work under the task order during the evaluation of proposals.  Tr. at 
38, 58.  Moreover, Dr. Thurn testified that she did not review the 
draft report, and that she did not review Aspen's final report until 
December 1996, well after the evaluation of proposals had been 
completed.  Tr. at 30.

We have examined both the nature of Dr. Thurn's and Ms. Harding's 
prior official involvement with Aspen in connection with the PDQ user 
satisfaction survey, and whether they improperly influenced the 
procurement on behalf of Aspen or against the protester.  As a 
preliminary matter, we note that the record shows that Aspen's work 
under the task order was only tangentially related, if at all, to the 
requirements under the RFP.  Specifically, the testimony at the 
hearing revealed that the purpose of the user satisfaction survey 
Aspen conducted was to examine the database from the user's or 
outsider's viewpoint, and not to ask about the specific contents of 
the database.

The record further shows that the official meetings between Aspen and 
NCI were strictly limited to discussing the protocol design and 
methodology, and preparing the survey questionnaire.  There is no 
evidence in the record to support ATLIS's contention that at those 
meetings, Aspen discussed which areas of the RFP the TEP considered 
important or would stress in its evaluation.  With respect to the 
survey responses themselves, the record shows that the information 
sought by the questionnaire is virtually unrelated in any way to the 
purpose of the contract contemplated by the RFP.  Accordingly, we fail 
to see how Aspen could have incorporated the results of the survey 
into its proposal in any meaningful way that would have afforded the 
firm an unfair competitive advantage.

We conclude that ATLIS has not shown that Aspen gained an unfair 
competitive advantage in this procurement as a result of its 
involvement with the PDQ user satisfaction survey.  In addition, we 
find that the work related to the PDQ user survey was so dissimilar in 
nature, purpose, and scope, to the instant procurement that we cannot 
conclude that Dr. Thurn's or Ms. Harding's official business contacts 
with Aspen related to the PDQ user satisfaction survey gave rise to a 
conflict of interest that required mitigation, or that they otherwise 
improperly influenced the outcome of the evaluation of proposals.

COST REALISM ANALYSIS

The agency awarded the contract to Aspen for a total estimated cost of 
$9,829,432; the government's independent estimate for the total effort 
was $14,474,861; and ATLIS's proposed costs were [DELETED].  ATLIS 
contends that the agency's cost evaluation was deficient because the 
agency failed to conduct a meaningful cost realism analysis of Aspen's 
significantly lower proposed costs.

When an agency evaluates proposals for the award of a cost 
reimbursement contract, an offeror's proposed estimated costs of 
contract performance and proposed fees are not considered controlling 
since an offeror's estimated costs may not provide valid indications 
of final actual costs that the government is required, within certain 
limits, to pay.   Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.605(c) (FAC 
90-31); General Research Corp., 70 Comp. Gen. 279 (1991), 91-1 CPD  para.  
183, recon. denied, American Management Sys., Inc.; Department of the 
Army--Recon., 70 Comp. Gen. 510 (1991), 91-1 CPD  para.  492.  The purpose 
of a cost realism analysis under a level-of-effort, cost 
reimbursement-type contract is to determine the extent to which an 
offeror's labor rates are realistic and reasonable.  Sociometrics, 
Inc., B-261367.2; B-261367.3, Nov. 1, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  201.  While an 
agency is not required to conduct an in-depth cost analysis or to 
verify each and every item in conducting a cost realism analysis, it 
must perform sufficient analysis to determine the extent to which an 
offeror's proposed costs represent what the contract should cost, 
assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.  See CACI, Inc.-Fed., 64 
Comp. Gen. 71 (1984), 84-2 CPD  para.  542.  Because the contracting agency 
is in the best position to make this cost realism determination, our 
review is limited to determining whether the agency's cost realism 
analysis is reasonably based and not arbitrary.  Grey Advertising, 
Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  325.

In support of the reasonableness of its cost realism analysis, the 
agency relies primarily on an audit report prepared by NIH's Cost 
Analysis Section, Financial Advisory Services Branch (FASB); the 
summary of negotiations memorandum; and the contracting officer's best 
buy analysis.  We have reviewed each of these documents in light of 
the protester's allegations and conclude that the agency's cost 
realism analysis was reasonably based.

Prior to conducting discussions, the FASB reviewed the proposed hourly 
rates for several labor categories, including the information 
specialist and the technical processing specialist, which together 
comprised the [DELETED].  The record shows that for each of the 
positions reviewed, the FASB verified that Aspen's proposed rates were 
the current rates being paid by Aspen to employees in comparable 
positions, and that those rates were realistic.

For all positions proposed the FASB also calculated salaries for each 
contract period.  In other words, the FASB calculated a starting 
salary and then calculated future salaries based on upward adjustments 
based on current levels of inflation.  The FASB also reviewed and 
recommended overhead and general and administrative costs in 
accordance with Aspen's most recent rate agreement with the Department 
of Justice.  As a result of its review, the FASB recommended a total 
upward adjustment of [DELETED] to Aspen's proposal for all contract 
periods.  The record shows that the questioned costs were the subject 
of discussions, and that Aspen agreed with the FASB's recommended 
rates.[4]  Under these circumstances, we think that the agency 
properly could rely upon the FASB's advice in performing its cost 
realism analysis, in the absence of evidence showing that the rates 
were unrealistically low.  Delta Research Assocs., Inc., B-254006.2, 
Nov. 22, 1993, 94-1 CPD  para.  47.

The record further shows that the contracting officer did not rely 
exclusively on the FASB's audit report, but conducted his own detailed 
cost analysis.  For instance, in the "summary of negotiations" 
memorandum, the contracting officer listed the negotiated hourly rates 
and total annual salaries for direct labor for all positions for all 5 
years of the contract.  The hourly rates for those positions were then 
compared with the rates under several other contracts with comparable 
positions.  The contracting officer also calculated overhead and G&A 
costs for all contract years.  The contracting officer confirmed the 
FASB's conclusion that Aspen's overhead rates and general and 
administrative (G&A) rates were in accordance with the current 
indirect rate agreement with the Department of Justice, and concluded, 
based on his discussion with the FASB, that Aspen's negotiated rates 
amounts for overhead and G&A are fair and reasonable.

In addition, the summary of negotiations memorandum shows that for 
each of the 5 contract years, the contracting officer analyzed other 
elements of cost such as travel, consultants, equipment, and other 
direct costs.  These costs had not been reviewed by FASB in its audit, 
but the record shows that some of these costs were the subject of 
discussions and that Aspen provided supporting documentation for the 
proposed costs in its BAFO.[5]  In each case, the memorandum states 
that the project officer reviewed and approved the appropriateness of 
these proposed costs.

ATLIS argues that the analyses contained in the summary of 
negotiations memorandum are flawed in several respects.  For instance, 
the protester points out that although that document states in various 
places that the project officer had reviewed and approved the 
appropriateness of the labor mix and proposed costs, there is nothing 
in the record to support the project officer's conclusion.  ATLIS also 
points to one labor category which Aspen proposed to fill with 
[DELETED] employees--information specialist--to argue that the agency 
did not consider whether Aspen could actually fill those positions at 
its proposed low hourly rate.

The contracting officer testified at the hearing that with respect to 
labor mix, number of hours, and costs, the project officer relied on 
her knowledge of similar work and past experience with the project.  
Tr. at 130.  The contracting officer also testified that Aspen 
proposed a total number of hours within [DELETED] percent of those 
proposed by ATLIS (a difference of approximately [DELETED]).  Tr. at 
150-151.  The record shows that the TEP considered that difference to 
have no impact on contract performance.  Since the record shows that 
the TEP reasonably evaluated the proposals under the 
personnel/staffing evaluation factor and found that Aspen had proposed 
highly qualified and appropriate staff, we need not further consider 
the protester's argument that the project officer's conclusions 
regarding the propriety of Aspen's proposed labor mix are not 
supported in the record.  In any event, in view of the relatively 
insignificant difference in number of hours proposed by the only two 
offerors, and in the absence of any showing by the protester that 
Aspen's proposed labor mix is unreasonable, we see no basis to 
question the project officer's or the TEP's conclusions in this 
regard.

With respect to the information specialist labor category, the 
contracting officer's summary of negotiations memorandum shows that 
Aspen proposed [DELETED] employees for that labor category at an 
hourly rate of [DELETED], while ATLIS proposed an hourly rate of 
[DELETED] for the same category.  According to ATLIS, this difference 
in cost is significant because the evaluators considered Aspen's 
proposal acceptable based on its understanding that Aspen would hire 
ATLIS's employees to fill these positions.  The protester maintains 
that had NCI properly analyzed Aspen's proposed costs, the agency 
should have concluded that Aspen could not hire qualified information 
specialists for [DELETED], and either adjusted Aspen's proposed costs 
upward, or downgraded Aspen's technical proposal to reflect the 
quality of the labor force Aspen proposed at the lower rate.

The record shows that the contracting officer compared Aspen's 
proposed rates for several labor categories, including the information 
specialist, to the rates actually paid under three other contracts 
with comparable positions and to ATLIS's proposed rates.  That 
comparison shows that for the three contracts, the hourly rates for 
the information specialist category were [DELETED], while ATLIS's 
proposed rate was [DELETED].  Clearly, Aspen's proposed hourly rate of 
[DELETED] for that position falls within the narrow range of rates 
under the three comparison contracts, while ATLIS's proposed rate is 
significantly out of line with those three contracts.  Contrary to the 
protester's position, the TEP did not condition acceptance of the 
awardee's proposal on Aspen's hiring only incumbent personnel.  
Rather, Aspen stated in response to a discussion item that it would 
rely on its experience to hire new employees, including some incumbent 
personnel.  In our view, it was not unreasonable for the agency to 
conclude that Aspen could hire and retain qualified employees to fill 
the [DELETED] positions of information specialist at its proposed 
rate.

Finally, in his best value analysis, the contracting officer 
"normalized" both offerors' costs by calculating an average cost per 
hour (including optional work) to perform the contract, and multiplied 
that amount by the total number of direct labor hours estimated in the 
RFP.  The results of that calculation show that Aspen's proposed costs 
remained below ATLIS's proposed costs by more than [DELETED].  Thus, 
even after normalizing proposals to account for the slight differences 
in the number of labor hours proposed, the record shows that Aspen's 
proposed costs remained significantly lower than the protester's 
lower-rated proposal.

In order to establish the unreasonableness of an evaluation, it is not 
enough that the protester disagrees with the agency's judgment or that 
the protester, as ATLIS has attempted to do here, can point to 
alternative methodologies available to the agency.  Payco Am. Corp., 
B-253668, Oct. 8, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  214.  Based on our review of the 
record, and for the reasons explained above, we have no reason to 
question the agency's cost realism analysis of Aspen's proposal.

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The RFP estimated the effort required to be approximately 283,000 
labor hours for the basic requirement.  In addition, the agency could 
exercise options beginning in the second year of performance for 
additional work--"option A" for expanding the Rare Disease Clinical 
Research (RDCR) database, and "option B" for updating the CANCERLIT 
database--totaling approximately 29,500 labor hours.

2. By contrast, the TEP concluded that Aspen proposed staff with 
strong backgrounds in patient education.  The TEP described Aspen's 
staff experience as "invaluable" as the PDQ expands to include more 
patient information.  Overall, the TEP found that Aspen proposed 
highly qualified and appropriate staff. 

3. ATLIS also argues that the TEP was improperly influenced by having 
access to the offerors' business proposals.  Our review of the 
evaluators' worksheets shows that of the four evaluators, only one 
briefly noted that Aspen's costs for the optional efforts A and B were 
"roughly the same" and also remarked on the overall difference in 
costs between ATLIS's and Aspen's proposals.  ATLIS has not shown, and 
there is no evidence in the record to support the protester's 
contention that the TEP was improperly influenced by knowing the 
offerors' costs, or that such knowledge had any effect on the 
technical evaluation.

4. ATLIS notes that the FASB qualified its report based on the lack of 
quantifiable technical information provided by the project officer 
regarding proposed employees, and recommended that the project officer 
review the levels of the personnel proposed for certain labor 
categories.  However, the record shows that the FASB also concluded 
that Aspen's proposal was acceptable as a basis for negotiations, and 
that questioned costs were resolved during discussions.  In the 
absence of any evidence that Aspen's labor rates are inaccurate, the 
FASB's qualification does not adversely impact the agency's cost 
realism analysis.  See The Warner/Osborn/G&T Joint Venture, 
B-256641.2, Aug. 23, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  76 at n. 4.

5. The FASB did not review the proposed costs associated with the 
optional work  totaling approximately [DELETED].  However, the summary 
of negotiations memorandum shows that the contracting officer reviewed 
these costs and found them to be reasonable and adequately supported 
in Aspen's proposal.