TITLE:  ViroMed Laboratories, Inc., B-289959.7, December 19, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-289959.7
DATE:  December 19, 2003
**********************************************************************
ViroMed Laboratories, Inc., B-289959.7, December 19, 2003

   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:   ViroMed Laboratories, Inc.
    
File:            B-289959.7
    
Date:              December 19, 2003
    
Thomas L. McGovern, III, Esq., and Michael J. Vernick, Esq., Hogan &
Hartson, for the protester.
Walter F. Zenner, Esq., and Matthew H. Solomson, Esq., Arnold & Porter,
for Center for Disease Control, an intervenor.
Maj. Robert B. Neill, and Jeffrey K. Reeds, Esq., Department of the Army,
for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  In fixed-unit-price procurement, where record supports agency*s
evaluation of awardee*s proposal as containing a *thorough, comprehensive
plan* for performing the solicitation requirements, awardee*s low proposed
prices to perform two contract line items making up only a small portion
of the total contract requirements did not require the agency to downgrade
awardee*s proposal with regard to understanding the scope of work. 
    
2.  In performing price realism analysis under fixed-unit-price
procurement, agency has broad discretion regarding the nature and extent
of the analysis it performs and, here, agency reasonably found awardee*s
price realistic where the total proposed prices of protester and awardee
were very similar.
    
3.  In establishing the scope of contracts to be considered in the
agency*s past performance evaluation, solicitation did not place a
*premium* on prior performance of large government contracts at military
facilities where the solicitation directed offerors to submit past
performance information regarding *commercial and/or government
contracts,* advised offerors that the agency would consider contracts that
were not *of the magnitude* being competed, and stating that the agency*s
past performance evaluation would be based on the agency*s subjective
consideration of *all relevant facts and circumstances.*

    
DECISION
    

   ViroMed Laboratories, Inc. protests the Department of the Army*s award of
a contract to the Center for Disease Detection (CDD) under request for
proposals (RFP) No. DADA10-01-R-0009 to perform various laboratory testing
and related services. ViroMed protests that the agency improperly
evaluated CDD*s and ViroMed*s technical proposals as substantially equal,
failed to perform a proper price realism analysis, and failed to properly
evaluate the offerors* past performance.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
BACKGROUND
    
This solicitation was issued by the U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) at
Fort Sam Houston, Texas in May 2001, seeking fixed-unit-price proposals to
perform various blood testing and related services for a base period and
four 1‑year option periods.[1]  The solicitation provided that award
would be based on the proposal offering the best value to the government
and established the following evaluation factors:  technical quality,[2]
past/present performance, proficiency testing,[3] financial capability and
price.  Agency Report, Tab C, at 2.  The solicitation advised offerors
that the combined non-price factors would be significantly more important
than price.  Id.  
    
With regard to price, offerors were required to propose fixed unit prices
for each of the contract line item numbers (CLINs) listed in the
solicitation schedule.[4]  The solicitation listed estimated quantities
for each CLIN,[5] and total proposed prices were established by
multiplying each offeror*s fixed prices for each CLIN by the associated
quantities for each contract period and summing the results.   
    
Five proposals were submitted by the initial closing date in June 2001. 
ViroMed, CDD, and a third offeror made oral presentations to the agency in
July.[6]  Following oral presentations CDD and ViroMed each performed
proficiency panel testing on two 20‑sample panels of specimens
provided by the agency.[7]  The agency concluded that both offerors*
performance regarding the sample test requirements was satisfactory. 
Agency Report, Tab P, at 3. 
    
Shortly after oral presentations, two members of the agency*s technical
evaluation team (TET) made an unauthorized site visit to CDD*s
facility.[8]  Due to this visit, the contracting officer relieved the TET
members of their duties and appointed a new TET in December 2001.  Agency
Report, Tab A, at 2.  Thereafter, the new TET reviewed the videotapes of
the oral presentations and prepared written discussion questions for
ViroMed and CDD. [9]  ViroMed and CDD subsequently provided written
responses to these discussion questions.  Agency Report, Tabs, I, J, K. 
The agency also conducted oral discussions with both offerors.  Agency
Report, Tab A, at 2-3.  Proposal revisions were submitted by both offerors
in January 2002.  Upon evaluation of these proposals, the agency found
them to be substantially equal with regard to non-price factors, and
determined that CDD*s proposal offered the lowest price.[10]  Accordingly,
CDD*s proposal was selected for award on the basis of its lower proposed
price. 
    
Following a debriefing, ViroMed filed a protest with our Office in
February 2002.   
Rather than submitting an agency report responding to ViroMed*s protest,
the contracting officer advised our Office, by letter dated March 19,
2002, that the agency intended to take various corrective actions,
including:  requesting CDD to re‑present the omitted portion of its
oral presentation, performing a new technical evaluation and a new past
performance evaluation, and making a new source selection decision. 
Agency Report, Tab S.  The contracting officer*s corrective action letter
further advised the offerors:  *I do not anticipate a new round of
discussions.  Instead, the agency intends to rely upon the discussions
held previously with the offerors.*  Id.  ViroMed did not challenge any
aspect of the agency*s corrective actions.[11]   
    
Consistent with the agency*s March 19 letter, the agency taped CDD*s
re‑presentation of the portion of its earlier oral presentation that
had not been recorded.  Thereafter, the TET team re-evaluated the
proposals, again concluding that the proposals were
substantially equal with regard to non-price factors.  The results of this
evaluation were as follows: 
    
    

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            |ViroMed         |CDD                       |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------------|
|Technical Quality           |                |                          |
|   -Understanding of Work   |Exceptional     |Exceptional               |
|   -Management Capability   |Exceptional     |Exceptional               |
|   -Quality Control         |Exceptional     |Acceptable                |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------------|
|Past Performance            |Excellent       |Excellent                 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------------|
|Proficiency Panel Testing   |Passed          |Passed                    |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------------|
|Financial Capability        |Sufficient      |Sufficient                |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------------|
|Price[12]                   |$17,809,189     |$16,855,623               |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

     
Agency Report, Tabs O, P. 
    
As shown, the only difference in the adjectival ratings assigned to the
two proposals occurred under the quality control subfactor.  Although the
TET rated ViroMed*s proposal *exceptional* and CDD*s proposal *acceptable*
under this subfactor, the team also stated: 
    
Both ViroMed and CDD show a solid [quality control] plan.  There are no
qualitative differences that would substantiate favoring one vendor
over the other. . . .   [B]oth are equally suited to perform the proposed
testing.
Agency Report, Tab O, at 1.
    
Upon reviewing both offerors* proposals, the contracting officer similarly
concluded there was no substantive basis to differentiate between
ViroMed*s and CDD*s quality control plans, stating: 
    
Both offerors* [quality control] plans completely fulfill the requirements
of the solicitation.  ViroMed received the higher rating of Exceptional
only because it provided more detail than did CDD.  Therefore, I do not
identify any substantive differences between the proposals and the
offerors* ability to successfully perform with respect to this subfactor. 
Thus, I find that CDD*s and ViroMed*s proposals are substantially equal
with respect to [quality control]. 
Agency Report, Tab P, at 3. 
    
Overall, the contracting officer concluded that the two proposals were
substantially equal with regard to the combined non-price factors and, in
July 2002, again selected CDD*s proposal for award based on its lower
proposed price.  Agency Report, Tab P, at 4.
    
In August 2002, ViroMed filed another protest challenging the source
selection decision.  In September 2002, following receipt of the agency*s
report responding to its August protest, ViroMed filed a supplemental
protest.  In November 2002, our Office conducted a hearing to address
various issues raised in ViroMed*s August and September 2002 protests,
including ViroMed*s assertion that CDD*s proposal failed to comply with
certain solicitation requirements regarding Federal Drug Administration
(FDA) licensing and/or registration.  Following the hearing, the agency
advised our Office and the offerors that it was, again, taking corrective
action, specifically stating that it would:  
    
(a)  Require proof of FDA blood bank certification from both
offerors;[[13]] and
(b)  Re-evaluate the existing final price proposal from both offerors. 
The re-evaluation shall be based on the existing final proposals.
Agency Report, Tab AI.
    
Consistent with the agency*s stated corrective action, the agency
thereafter sought additional information from both ViroMed and CDD
regarding each offeror*s compliance with the solicitation provisions
regarding FDA licensing/registration.[14]  Following receipt of additional
information from both offerors, the agency determined that both proposals
met the solicitation requirements and, in May 2003, again selected CDD*s
proposal for award based on a determination that the proposals were
substantially equal and that CDD proposed a lower price.
    
On June 2, 2003, ViroMed filed another protest, alleging, among other
things, that the agency*s price evaluation contained a mathematical
error.[15]  By letter dated July 9, the agency acknowledged that its price
evaluation erroneously included a double counting of one CLIN and also
reflected certain *clerical errors.*  Agency Report, Tab 702.  The agency
stated that it intended to reevaluate the offerors* existing final price
proposals and make a new source selection decision.[16]  Id.  On August
14, the agency again selected CDD*s proposal for award based on a
determination that the proposals were technically equal and that CDD
proposed the lower price.[17]  Agency Report, Tab 706.  This protest
followed. 
    
DISCUSSION
    
ViroMed first challenges the contracting officer*s conclusion that CDD*s
and ViroMed*s proposals were substantially equal with regard to technical
quality, primarily arguing that CDD*s understanding of the work and its
proposed quality control plan could not reasonably have been evaluated as
equal to the incumbent ViroMed*s understanding of the work and its
proposed quality control plan. 
    
Regarding the evaluation of technical proposals, it is not the function of
this Office to evaluate technical proposals de novo; rather, in reviewing
a protest against an allegedly improper technical evaluation, we will
examine the record only to determine whether the agency*s judgment was
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation*s stated evaluation
factors and applicable statutes and regulations.  J & E Assocs., Inc.,
B-278187, Jan. 5, 1998, 98‑1 CPD P: 42 at 2-3. The protester*s
disagreement with the agency*s judgment does not render the evaluation
unreasonable. ESCO, Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD P: 450 at 7.
    
Here, the solicitation provided that, with regard to understanding of the
work, offerors must *[p]rovide a detailed implementation plan describing
the strategy for providing timely, effective, and complete start-up,* as
well as an *outline [of] the general plan of work [the offeror] plans to
follow describing methodologies to be employed [in meeting the performance
requirements].*  Agency Report, Tab C, at 6-7. 
    
In evaluating CDD*s proposal regarding these solicitation requirements,
the agency considered all of the information CDD provided during its oral
presentation, as well as CDD*s responses to the agency*s discussion
questions, concluding:
    
CDD*s rating [of exceptional] was based on the presentation of a thorough,
comprehensive plan detailing their proposal for initial start up and
general plan of work.  [CDD] demonstrated a clear understanding of the
requirement.  This organization is staffed with key personnel having
extensive experience in the area of large volume STD [sexually transmitted
disease] testing and the security and storage of specimens. Substantial
information was provided evidencing the scope of work is well within CDD*s
capacity and capability.  The plan presented is logical, realistic and
well thought out.  When implemented a seamless and timely transition is
anticipated.
Agency Report, Tab P, at 1-2. 
    
Nothing in ViroMed*s protest identifies any portion of CDD*s oral
presentation or its written responses to the agency*s discussion questions
that reflects a lack of understanding regarding the solicitation
requirements.  More specifically, other than ViroMed*s allegations
regarding price realism, discussed below, ViroMed*s protest offers no
basis to question the agency*s conclusions that CDD*s proposal contained a
*thorough, comprehensive [performance] plan,* that CDD*s organization was
*staffed with key personnel having extensive experience,* and that CDD*s
proposed approach was *logical, realistic and well thought out.*[18] 
    
Although ViroMed asserts that the agency*s evaluation of technical quality
was unreasonable, its criticisms in this regard rely entirely on the
assertion that CDD offered unrealistically low prices.  Further, ViroMed*s
assertions do not address CDD*s total proposed price--which is very close
to ViroMed*s; rather, ViroMed*s arguments focus on only two CLINs--one
requiring blood bank confirmatory testing and one requiring automation
support--which constitute only a small portion of the overall contract
requirements.[19]  In short, ViroMed maintains that CDD*s fixed-price
proposal to perform these two CLINs at a price lower than the level of
costs ViroMed anticipates it will incur in performing these functions
required the agency to conclude that CDD did not understand the contract
requirements.  We disagree.   
    
Based on our review of the complete protest record, including the tapes of
CDD*s oral presentations and CDD*s written responses to the agency*s
discussion questions, and taking into consideration the relatively small
portion of the total contract requirements that these two CLINs represent,
we find no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency*s assessment
regarding CDD*s understanding of the contract requirements and its
conclusion that the two proposals were substantially equal with regard to
technical quality.     
    
To the extent ViroMed*s protest asserts that, in evaluating the CDD*s
proposed price in this fixed-unit-price procurement, the agency was
required to evaluate the individual elements of that price in much the
same manner it would perform a cost realism analysis under a
cost-reimbursement contract, ViroMed*s protest is without merit.  Where,
as here, an RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract and the
solicitation provides that the agency will consider the price realism of
the proposals it receives, the nature and extent of agency*s analysis are
matters within the agency*s sound discretion, and our review of such an
evaluation is limited to determining whether it was reasonable and
consistent with the provisions of the solicitation.  Rodgers Travel, Inc.,
B-291785, Mar. 12, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 60 at 4; Star Mountain, Inc.,
B-285883, Oct. 25, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 189 at 2.
    
Here, the agency considered various aspects of both offerors* proposed
prices, including a comparison of the two offerors* total proposed
prices.  On the facts presented here, including the relatively minor
portion of both offerors* total proposed prices that the disputed CLINs
represent, and the fact that the offerors* total proposed prices were
within 2 to 3 percent of each other, we find no merit in ViroMed*s
assertion that the agency*s price analysis was materially flawed. 
    
ViroMed next protests that the agency improperly evaluated CDD*s and
ViroMed*s proposals with regard to past performance.  Specifically,
ViroMed maintains that the solicitation *plainly placed a premium on an
offeror*s experience performing large government contracts, especially
those performed for military treatment facilities,* Protest at 16, and
that the agency failed to apply this stated criterion in its evaluation of
CDD*s past performance.  In short, ViroMed asserts that, as the incumbent
contractor, it had greater experience in performing large government
contracts at military facilities and that any determination that CDD*s
past performance for purposes of performing this contract was equal to
that of ViroMed*s was unreasonable.  We disagree.
    
Contrary to ViroMed*s assertion regarding the stated evaluation criteria,
the solicitation did not *place a premium* on performance of large
government contracts performed at military facilities for purposes of
evaluating past performance.  Rather, in the instructions regarding the
type of past performance information to provide, the solicitation directed
that offerors *[d]escribe all similar commercial and/or government
contracts and subcontracts awarded or performed during the past 3 years.* 
Agency Report, Tab C, at 4.  Similarly, the solicitation stated, *If you
do not have any government experience, or none of the magnitude set forth
in this solicitation, then private sector contracts for similar services
which you consider relevant compared with the services required by this
solicitation may be submitted.*  Id. at 5.   Finally, the solicitation
stated that *[e]valuation of past and present performance will often be
quite subject[ive] based on consideration of all relevant facts and
circumstances.  It will include a determination of the offeror*s
commitment to customer satisfaction.*  Id. at 2.  Thus, it is clear the
solicitation expressly advised offerors that, in evaluating past
performance, performance of both commercial and government contracts would
be considered; further, offerors were clearly advised that contracts that
were not *of the magnitude* of this contract would be considered; finally,
offerors were advised that the agency*s evaluation would not be narrowly
constrained as ViroMed suggests but, rather, would reflect consideration
of all relevant facts and circumstances. 
    
In performing the past performance evaluation here, the record clearly
shows that the agency contacted multiple references regarding CDD*s past
performance.  Agency Report, Tab AC.  Every one of the references provided
positive information regarding CDD*s past performance.  Id.  For example,
with regard to a contract with  Nebraska*s Department of Health and Human
Services, under which CDD performs more than [deleted] HIV tests annually,
the reference stated that *CDD*s performance was excellent* and that he
*would not hesitate recommending CDD for award.*  Id. at 1. Similarly,
with regard to a contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Health,
under which CDD processes more than [deleted] tests annually, the
reference stated that *[a]ll tasks specified in the contract are carried
out exactly as directed by contract specifications.*  Id. at 1-2. 
Finally, regarding a contract with the federal Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, the reference stated that CDD*s staff *exhibited a spirit
of teamwork uncommon in most workplaces,* and that she *would recommend
CDD to anyone in need of this service.*  Id. at 2.  
    
In short, as discussed above, we reject ViroMed*s assertion that the
solicitation*s evaluation criteria regarding past performance required the
agency to place a *premium* on past performance of large government
contracts at military facilities.  Further, as discussed above, the
agency*s evaluation record fully supports the agency*s assessment that
CDD*s past performance reasonably warranted an *excellent* rating. 
Accordingly, ViroMed*s protest to the contrary is without merit. 
    
Finally, ViroMed*s protest raised various other issues including the
assertion that the agency was required to advise ViroMed during
discussions that its price was too high and that CDD*s price proposal was
materially unbalanced.  We have considered all of ViroMed*s allegations
and conclude that none provide a basis for sustaining the protest. 
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

   ------------------------

   [1] This procurement is part of an ongoing Army program to test blood
samples drawn from U.S. soldiers.  Under the solicitation, the contractor
is required to perform various laboratory tests with regard to the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), measles antibody, human papillomavirus
(HPV), varicella antibody, rubella antibody, and the mumps antibody. 
Agency Report, Tab F, at 1.  The solicitation also requires that the
contractor provide an automated system to create and store data files, and
to securely transfer information to authorized facilities.  Id.  ViroMed
was the incumbent contractor at the time the solicitation was issued, and
has continued to perform the solicitation requirements during the nearly
2-year period that award has been delayed due to ViroMed*s various
protests and the agency*s multiple corrective actions.   
[2] Under the evaluation factor for assessing technical quality, the
solicitation established the following equally weighted subfactors: 
understanding the scope of work, management capability, and quality
control.  Agency Report, Tab C, at 2. 
[3] With regard to this evaluation factor, the solicitation provided that
offerors within the competitive range following oral presentations would
be required to perform testing on two 20-specimen panels to demonstrate
testing proficiency.  Agency Report, Tab C, at 5-6.  Evaluation of
proposals regarding this factor was performed on a pass/fail basis.
[4] The solicitation schedule contained the following CLINs:  HIV initial
screening tests, duplicate HIV tests, HIV Western Blot tests, blood donor
confirmatory testing, measles antibody, HPV, varicella antibody, rubella
antibody, mumps antibody, and automation support.  Agency Report, Tab D,
at 1-7.  
[5] HIV-related testing requirements constituted a significant majority of
the solicitation*s testing requirements.  For example, the solicitation
estimated that more than 530,000 HIV-related tests would be required
during the base period, while only 830 blood bank confirmatory tests would
be required.  Agency Report, Tab D, at 2-7.
[6] Two of the five offerors withdrew from the competition prior to oral
presentations.  The third offeror was determined to be outside the
competitive range following oral presentations.
[7] The solicitation provided that the panels were to be picked up by the
contractor on July 11 and returned on July 16.  Agency Report, Tab C, at
5.  The solicitation also stated:  *Test Panel results must be accompanied
by a certification, signed by a laboratory supervisor, certifying that the
administration of the prescribed tests were accomplished in the precise
manner that the offeror would employ in the performance of this
contract.*  Id.  
[8] CDD*s facility is located within a few miles of the MEDCOM offices in
San Antonio, Texas. 
[9] In reviewing the videotape of CDD*s oral presentation, the TET found
that the tape contained an 18-minute gap, which appeared to have been
caused by someone depressing the video recorder*s *pause* button during
CDD*s presentation.  Agency Report, Tab A, at 2.  The agency*s discussion
questions sought information from CDD regarding solicitation requirements
that had, apparently, been addressed during the 18-minute period the video
recorder had not operated.  
[10] ViroMed*s proposed price was $21,994,203; CDD*s proposed price was
$21,361,184, approximately 3 percent lower than ViroMed*s.  Agency Report,
Tab P, at 3.
[11] As a result of the delay caused by the protest and the agency*s
corrective action, ViroMed, the incumbent contractor, continued to perform
the solicitation requirements.
[12] In performing the various corrective actions discussed throughout
this decision, the agency*s price evaluations appear to assume that the
contract performance period automatically decreased to reflect the delay
in contract award caused by ViroMed*s various protests and the agency
corrective actions.  Accordingly, although none of the agency*s corrective
actions included a request for revised price proposals, ViroMed*s and
CDD*s evaluated prices decline under each re-evaluation.  Since the
solicitation was never amended to reflect a shorter contract performance
period, this approach may not have been justified.  However, the record is
clear--and ViroMed does not dispute--that CDD*s proposal offers the lowest
price under all of the performance scenarios, including, most
significantly, the full performance period stated in the solicitation.  In
light of our determination, discussed below, that the agency reasonably
evaluated ViroMed*s and CDD*s technical proposals as substantially equal,
along with the fact that CDD*s proposal was properly evaluated as offering
the lower price with regard to any of the evaluated contract performance
periods, ViroMed was not prejudiced by the agency*s approach.  Further, in
response to the agency*s various corrective actions, ViroMed has never
filed a protest asserting that the agency should, additionally, amend the
solicitation to reflect a shorter performance period.
[13] The agency concluded that neither ViroMed nor CDD had previously
provided adequate documentation to the agency regarding the solicitation*s
FDA licensing/registration requirements.  Agency Report, Tabs AM, AN.
[14] Again, the delay caused by ViroMed*s protest and agency corrective
action resulted in ViroMed*s continued performance of the solicitation
requirements.
[15] In its June 2, 2003 protest, ViroMed, for the first time, asserted
that CDD*s proposal failed to comply with the solicitation requirement to
submit a certification with the proficiency panel testing performed by the
offerors in July 2001.  As noted above, the solicitation required that the
test panel results *must be accompanied by a certification . . . that the
administration of the prescribed tests were accomplished in the precise
manner that the offeror would employ in the performance of this
contract.*  Agency Report, Tab C, at 6.  In its June 2, 2003 protest,
ViroMed maintains that CDD could not possibly have complied with this
certification requirement since CDD*s proposal expressly provided that CDD
intended to perform the vast majority of the contract*s testing
requirements using [deleted] system that CDD had not installed, or even
acquired, at the time the July 2001 proficiency panel tests were
performed.  See Agency Report, Tab AD, at 3 (letter from CDD to the agency
stating, *The first of our [deleted] systems will be installed on or about
the second week of September 2001.*)  However, ViroMed*s counsel, who were
admitted to the protective order for this protest, received all of the
information discussed above in the September 2002 agency report that
responded to ViroMed*s August 2002 protest.  Accordingly, to comply with
our Bid Protest Regulations regarding timely submission of protest issues,
ViroMed was required to identify CDD*s alleged failure to comply with the
certification requirement no later than 10 days after receiving the
September 2002 agency report.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.
21.2(a)(2) (2003).  Since ViroMed failed to do so, this matter is not
timely raised, and we will not further consider it. 
[16] Once again, the delay resulted in an extension of ViroMed*s ongoing
performance of the solicitation requirements.
[17] On July 24, ViroMed submitted a request that our Office recommend
reimbursement of the costs ViroMed has incurred in filing and pursuing its
various protests.  To the extent ViroMed is requesting reimbursement for
costs incurred in response to any protest other than the June 2, 2003
protest, the request is not timely and will not be further addressed.  4
C.F.R. S: 21.8.  With regard to the agency*s correction of
mathematical/clerical errors in its calculation of ViroMed*s price, the
record is now clear that CDD was the lower priced offeror both before and
after correction of the errors; thus, ViroMed*s identification of this
matter in its protest, notwithstanding the agency*s decision to take
corrective action, was not material to the source selection decision. 
Accordingly, we do not view ViroMed*s protest regarding this issue as
being clearly meritorious, which is a prerequisite to our recommendation
of cost reimbursement.  See, e.g., KENROB & Assocs., Inc.--Costs,
B-291573.7, Apr. 25, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 99.  On this record, we decline to
recommend reimbursement of ViroMed*s protest costs. 
[18]  Similarly, nothing in ViroMed*s protest provides a basis for
challenging the agency*s assessment that, although ViroMed*s quality
control plan contained greater detail, there was nothing in its plan
making it substantively superior to CDD*s quality control plan.  In this
regard, the solicitation required that offerors *[p]rovide an overview of
your methodology of identifying, resolving, and preventing quality
assurance problems to include documentation, record maintenance and
reporting of quality related problems.*  Agency Report, Tab C, at 7.  As
noted above, the agency concluded that both offerors* quality control
plans *completely fulfilled the solicitation requirements.*  Agency
Report, Tab P, at 3.  ViroMed*s protest fails to identify any portion of
CDD*s plan that fails to meet the solicitation requirements, nor does it
identify any aspect of its own plan that substantively meets or exceeds
the solicitation requirements in a manner beneficial to the agency. 
Accordingly, we find no basis to question the agency*s determination that
both quality control plans were substantively equal.  
[19] Specifically, the solicitation contemplated a total of 830 blood bank
tests per year, which constitutes less than 1 percent of the total testing
requirements.  Further, the fixed prices offered by both ViroMed*s and
CDD*s proposals to perform the solicitation*s automation support
requirements constitute a minimal portion of their total proposed
prices.