BNUMBER:  B-278508.4; B-278508.5; B-278508.6 
DATE:  October 6, 1998
TITLE: Biospherics Incorporated, B-278508.4; B-278508.5; B-278508.6,
October 6, 1998
**********************************************************************

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.
Matter of:Biospherics Incorporated

File:     B-278508.4; B-278508.5; B-278508.6

Date:October 6, 1998

Steven L. Briggerman, Esq., and Grace Bateman, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, 
Fairweather & Geraldson, for the protester.
Alan S. Weitz, Esq., Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C., for Logistics 
Applications Inc., an intervenor.
Michael Colvin, Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protests are sustained where there is no documentation of the agency's 
evaluation of final revised proposals, that is, there is no 
information in the record regarding proposal strengths and weaknesses 
after discussions, and as a result, the reasonableness of the agency's 
evaluation upon which the award decision was made cannot be 
determined.

DECISION

Biospherics Incorporated protests the award of a contract to Logistics 
Applications Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. AHCPR-98-0001, 
issued by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR), 
Department of Health & Human Services, for the operation of a 
publications clearinghouse.  Biospherics challenges the agency's 
evaluation of proposals and the agency's selection decision.

We sustain the protests.

The RFP, issued on June 5, 1997 as a small business set-aside, 
contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the base 
period and four 1-year option periods.  RFP  sec.  L.2., at 62.  The RFP 
described warehousing and distribution (fulfillment) tasks and 
automated call center and database management function tasks.  The RFP 
required the contractor to store and distribute AHCPR publications; to 
maintain and manage AHCPR's automated mailing/inventory control 
systems; and to manage the storage and shipping of AHCPR exhibits.

The RFP stated that the "Government reserves the right to make an 
award to the best advantage of the Government, cost and other factors 
considered."  RFP  sec.  M.1.A., at 80.  The RFP contained the following 
technical evaluation factors and respective weights:  (1) 
understanding the problem--25 points; (2) technical approach--25 
points; (3) management plan--20 points; (4) key personnel--20 points; 
and (5) facilities--10 points.  RFP  sec.  M.2.A.--E., at 81-82.  The RFP 
stated that a peer review technical committee would consider offerors' 
proposals in light of these technical evaluation factors and make a 
recommendation concerning the technical acceptability/unacceptability 
of each proposal.  RFP  sec.  M.2., at 81.  Offerors whose proposals were 
determined technically acceptable would then be evaluated for past 
performance, weighted at 25 points, based on the firm's performance 
under existing and prior contracts for similar services.  RFP  sec.  
M.2.F., at 82.  The RFP stated that technical proposals would receive 
paramount consideration in the selection of the awardee.  RFP  sec.  
M.1.A., at 80.  Cost would only become a significant factor if two or 
more proposals were determined approximately technically equal.  Id.

Three firms, including Biospherics and LAI, submitted proposals by the 
amended closing date of July 11, 1997.  Under the prior contract, LAI 
was the prime contractor performing the warehousing and distribution 
tasks, and Biospherics was LAI's subcontractor performing the call 
center and database management tasks.  For the current procurement, 
LAI submitted a proposal to basically perform all required tasks, and 
Biospherics submitted a proposal as the prime contractor teamed with 
another firm which would serve as a subcontractor for the warehousing 
and distribution tasks.  The three proposals were evaluated by a peer 
review panel made up of six individuals.  This panel determined that 
two proposals, including that of Biospherics, were technically 
acceptable, and that LAI's proposal was technically unacceptable.  
Following discussions with Biospherics and the other offeror and the 
submission of revised proposals, the agency awarded a contract to 
Biospherics.

LAI subsequently protested to our Office, contending among other 
things that the peer review panel was biased because two of the six 
reviewers were former employees of Biospherics and had failed to 
disclose in their conflict of interest certificates their prior 
employment relationships with Biospherics.  The agency took corrective 
action by convening a new peer review panel to reevaluate proposals.  
Our Office dismissed LAI's protest as academic in light of the 
agency's corrective action.

The agency's new peer review panel, made up of three individuals,[1] 
convened on March 23, 1998.  This panel reviewed the three technical 
proposals as initially submitted, that is, none of the offerors was 
permitted to revise its proposal at this time.  All three proposals 
were determined technically acceptable.  The panel then considered the 
project officer's evaluation of each offeror's past performance which 
was based on questionnaires completed by references listed in each 
offeror's proposal.  As relevant to these protests, Biospherics and 
LAI received the following scores:

                           Biospherics    LAI

               Technical    [deleted]  [deleted]

           Past Performance [deleted]  [deleted]

                 TOTAL      [deleted]  [deleted]
Technical scores were supported by narratives of the strengths and 
weaknesses in each offeror's technical proposal.  At this time, the 
proposed cost of Biospherics was [deleted] than LAI's proposed cost 
[deleted].

The proposals of Biospherics and LAI (as well as that of the third 
offeror) were included in the competitive range.  Following 
discussions with each competitive range offeror, which focused on 
technical and cost issues, the offerors submitted final revised 
proposals.  The agency made no adjustments to the technical scores of 
any of the offerors, and therefore, as relevant to these protests, the 
final scores for the revised proposals of Biospherics and LAI remained 
as reflected in the above chart.  The agency produced no documentation 
reflecting an analysis of the offerors' revised proposals.  With 
respect to cost, the Biospherics proposed cost now was [deleted] than 
LAI's proposed cost.  The agency selected LAI as the most advantageous 
offeror since it submitted the highest technically rated, [deleted] 
proposed cost proposal.

Biospherics challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal, 
contending that its proposal should have been rated technically 
superior to LAI's proposal.  Biospherics further challenges the 
agency's decision to award a contract to LAI as a technically superior 
offeror.

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is 
not our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, our Office examines the 
record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and 
in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria.  Engineering and 
Computation, Inc., B-261658, Oct. 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  176 at 2-3.  In 
order for us to review an agency's selection determination, an agency 
must have adequate documentation to support that decision.  Arco 
Management of Washington, D.C., Inc., B-248653, Sept. 11, 1992, 92-2 
CPD  para.  173 at 3.  While adjectival ratings and point scores are useful 
as guides to decision-making, they generally are not controlling, but 
rather, must be supported by documentation of the relative differences 
between proposals, their weaknesses and risks, and the basis and 
reasons for the selection decision.  FAR  sec.  15.608(a)(3), 15.612(d)(2) 
(June 1997); Century Envtl. Hygiene, Inc., B-279378, June 5, 1998, 
98-1 CPD  para.  164 at 4; Engineering and Computation, Inc., supra, at 3.

Here, the record is devoid of any documentation of the agency's 
evaluation of final revised proposals.  There is no indication of an 
analysis of the revised proposals, no information in the record 
regarding proposal strengths and weaknesses after discussions, and no 
discussion as to why the strengths and weaknesses from the initial 
evaluation remained the same.[2]  In the absence of such 
documentation, we are unable to determine the reasonableness of the 
agency's evaluation upon which the selection of LAI for award was 
made.

In responding to these protests, the agency states:

     The [Biospherics] proposal, as amended [by its final revised 
     proposal], was considered improved (though no rescoring was 
     performed), but not enough to be considered technically equal 
     with LAI.  The judgment of the source selection official that 
     LAI's proposal was superior was not based on a numerical 
     rescoring, but rather on a comprehensive look at the final 
     results of the technical, cost and past performance evaluations.

Agency Report, letter dated August 17, 1998, at 1-2.

In view of the inadequacy of this conclusory statement that LAI's 
proposal was technically superior to Biospherics' proposal, we asked 
the agency to point out where the record documented a "comprehensive 
look at the final results of the technical, cost and past performance 
evaluations."  The agency responded, again with conclusory statements, 
in a letter dated August 27, 1998:

     The Source Selection Memorandum (Tab Q) represents the 
     "comprehensive" assessment of the three major factors of cost, 
     technical and past performance.  Before preparing this document, 
     the contract specialist had a comprehensive discussion with the 
     project officer, during which the relative technical strengths 
     and weaknesses of the offerors were reviewed.  Also covered in 
     that discussion was the weight to be afforded to estimated cost 
     and past performance.  This oral discussion was not reduced to 
     writing directly except, as mentioned above, as it is reflected 
     in the Source Selection Memorandum.  As the contracting officer 
     has stated in her most recent submission, Biospherics would not 
     have been selected for award even if its technical merit had been 
     considered equal to LAI's (which was not the case), since LAI was 
     more highly ranked in both estimated cost and past performance.

The record shows that the agency's source selection memorandum 
consisted of a chronology of the procurement; a listing of the 
technical evaluation factors; the technical, past performance, and 
total scores for each offeror; the offerors' proposed costs before and 
after discussions; a statement that all three proposals were included 
in the competitive range because the three offerors submitted 
technically acceptable proposals and were determined capable to 
perform the RFP requirements; a statement repeating that the RFP 
required paramount consideration to be given to technical quality 
rather than cost, unless the proposals were determined essentially 
technically equal; and the contracting officer's statement that the 
proposal of LAI scored highest for the technical evaluation factors 
and past performance and represented the best value (highest technical 
score and [deleted] proposed cost).

The source selection memorandum, however, contained no discussion of 
the results of the evaluation of the Biospherics and LAI revised 
proposals after discussions.  In the absence of such narratives, we 
cannot discern the basis for the agency's conclusion that LAI's 
proposal was technically superior to that of Biospherics or, in other 
words, that the Biospherics proposal was, essentially, technically 
inferior to LAI's proposal.

In sum, the evaluation and source selection record furnished to our 
Office--numerical scores and a blanket determination of acceptability, 
no post-discussion narratives, and the source selection memorandum 
which contains no explanation of how the revised proposals affected 
the initial evaluation--is insufficient for our Office to determine 
the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of proposals and the 
reasonableness of the agency's selection decision.  See, e.g., 
Labat-Anderson Inc., B-246071, B-246071.2, Feb. 18, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  
193 at 5-8.

We recommend that the agency, in accordance with the applicable FAR 
provisions, reevaluate the proposals, document its evaluation, and 
make a new selection decision.  If after reevaluation the agency 
believes further discussions with offerors are warranted, it may 
reopen discussions and request another round of revised proposals.  If 
the agency decides that LAI is no longer in line for award, the agency 
should terminate the award to LAI and make another award.  We also 
recommend that Biospherics be reimbursed its costs of filing and 
pursuing the protests, including reasonable attorneys' fees.  Bid 
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d)(1) (1998).  Biospherics should 
submit its certified claim, detailing the time expended and costs 
incurred, directly to the contracting agency within 60 days of receipt 
of this decision.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(f)(1).

The protests are sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. This panel consisted of a registered nurse with a Ph.D. degree who 
teaches nursing theory and research and is a freelance technical 
writer; an individual who is a freelance editor/writer, owns his own 
publications company, and teaches college-level mass communications 
and communications studies; and an individual who owns his own company 
dealing with corporate communications.  The protester contends that 
the selection of these individuals for the panel demonstrates the 
agency's bad faith.  While these individuals may not have had direct 
publications clearinghouse experience, Biospherics has presented no 
evidence that these individuals lacked the competence and skills 
necessary to reasonably evaluate proposals.  In fact, we agree with 
the agency that the collective expertise of these individuals in the 
areas of communications, publications, health services research, and 
information technology provided relevant and appropriate background 
for them to be able to reasonably evaluate proposals.  

2. The materials provided to Biospherics as part of its debriefing 
included a statement of the strengths and weaknesses resulting from 
the initial evaluation.