TITLE:  Abt Associates Inc., B-295449; B-295449.2, March 2, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295449; B-295449.2
DATE:  March 2, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Abt Associates Inc.

   File:            B-295449; B-295449.2

   Date:              March 2, 2005

   Dean M. Dilley, Esq., and Michael J. Schaengold, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP,
for the protester.

   Garry S. Grossman, Esq., and Aaron M. Forester, Esq., Schiff Hardin LLP,
for National Opinion Research Center, an intervenor.

   Elise Harris, Esq., Alex M. Azar II, Esq., and Bruce R. Granger, Esq.,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for the agency.

   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.  Protest that discussions were not meaningful due to agency's failure
to identify several weaknesses is denied where it is clear that protester
was not prejudiced; assigning protester's proposal additional evaluation
credit in the areas involved would leave its technical proposal rated
lower than awardee's, and awardee's evaluated cost was significantly lower
than protester's.  2.  Technical evaluation of protester's proposal was
reasonable where initial proposal failed to provide sufficient information
regarding key personnel's expertise in a particular area and availability
of consultants, and agency reasonably determined that revised proposal
failed to provide sufficient information to address its concerns.  3. 
Technical evaluation of awardee's proposal regarding experience with
[deleted] was reasonable where, in response to discussion questions on
this matter, awardee provided additional information to demonstrate
sufficient [deleted] and other comparable experience of various key
personnel. 4.  Cost realism evaluation of awardee's proposal was
unobjectionable where record shows that agency reviewed cost elements of
initial proposal, obtained revised cost proposal, and had it reviewed by
Defense Contract Audit Agency for realism and possible understatement;
source selection authority considered the information in making her award
determination; and protester has not shown that upward cost adjustments
were warranted.

   DECISION

   Abt Associates Inc. protests the award of a contract to the National
Opinion Research Center (NORC) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
2004-N-01001, issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Department
of Health and Human Services, for the planning and conducting of
health-related surveys.  Abt challenges the evaluation of the technical
proposals and the evaluation of NORC's cost proposal.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, which contemplated the award of a cost-reimbursement plus
fixed-fee contract, sought proposals to plan and conduct the National
Immunization Survey (NIS) and State and Local Area Integrated Telephone
Survey (SLAITS) for data years 2005-2007, with options to continue data
collection for 2008-2009.[1]  The NIS is a random digit dialing (RDD)
telephone survey designed to obtain quality and timely data pertaining to
the immunization coverage of pre-school children across the United
States.  SLAITS is a broad-based, ongoing surveillance system available at
the state and local levels for tracking and monitoring the health and
well-being of children and adults.  SLAITS uses the same sampling frame as
the NIS, and immediately follows the NIS in selected households, using its
sample for efficiency and economy.  The contractor is to design and
conduct quarterly/annual surveys to collect data from the families of
age-eligible children in RDD interviews; collect data from medical
providers reported for those children; combine the information from the
responding providers and families to produce improved vaccination
estimates; perform descriptive analyses of the data collected; and prepare
and document computer files of the survey data.

   Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of six factors--methodology
and approach (50 of 100 available points); personnel/staff expertise and
experience (25A points); company experience, past performance and
capability (10 points); management plan (10 points); facilities and
equipment (5 points); and cost.  Cost was to be evaluated for cost
realism.  Technical strength was considered more important than cost and
award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the "best
value" to the government.

   Three offerors, including Abt and NORC, submitted proposals, which were
evaluated by the technical evaluation panel (TEP).  Based on the results
of the initial evaluation, Abt's and NORC's proposals were included in the
competitive range.  The agency conducted written discussions with Abt and
NORC, and obtained a final proposal revision (FPR) from each.  After the
individual members of the TEP reviewed and scored each of the initial and
revised proposals, the TEP met to reach a consensus by reviewing all
identified strengths and weaknesses and compiling, verifying, and
averaging the individual evaluators' scores.  The agency also obtained
revised cost proposals and had them reviewed by the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA) for cost realism.  The results of the final consensus
evaluation are as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|A                                     |Abt            |NORC             |
|--------------------------------------+---------------+-----------------|
|Methodology/Approach (50)             |43             |46.75            |
|--------------------------------------+---------------+-----------------|
|Personnel/Staff/Experience (25)       |22             |23.25            |
|--------------------------------------+---------------+-----------------|
|Co. Exp./Past Perf./Capability (10)   |7.25           |8.25             |
|--------------------------------------+---------------+-----------------|
|Management Plan (10)                  |8.25           |9                |
|--------------------------------------+---------------+-----------------|
|Facilities/Equipment (5)              |3.75           |5                |
|--------------------------------------+---------------+-----------------|
|Total (100)                           |84.25          |92.25            |
|--------------------------------------+---------------+-----------------|
|Technical Rating (overall)            |Outstanding    |Superior         |
|--------------------------------------+---------------+-----------------|
|Initial Proposed Cost                 |[deleted]      |[deleted]        |
|--------------------------------------+---------------+-----------------|
|Revised Proposed Cost                 |$77,422,221    |$60,322,322      |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Based on the DCAA review and its own evaluation of NORC's proposed cost,
the agency concluded that the firm could satisfactorily perform at its
revised proposed cost.  Based on this and the outcome of the technical
evaluation, the contracting officer, as source selection authority,
concluded that NORC's proposal represented the best value to the agency
and awarded it the contract.  After receiving a debriefing, Abt filed this
protest.[2]

   MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS

   Abt asserts that its proposal was improperly downgraded based on various
weaknesses identified by the agency under criteria 1 (methodology and
approach) and 3 (personnel/staff expertise and experience) because the
firm was not notified of the weaknesses in discussions.  In this regard,
when an agency engages in discussions with an offeror, the discussions
must be meaningful, that is, they must lead the offeror into the areas of
its proposal that require correction or amplification.  Hanford Envtl.
Health Found., B-292858.2, B-292858.5, Apr. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD P 164
atA 8. 

   Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a
reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions,
that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's
actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. 
McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD P 54 at 3; see
Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

   While the precise impact from the agency's failure to provide discussions
in this area is unclear, it is clear that Abt was not prejudiced.  Abt's
consensus score for criterionA 1 was 43 out of 50 possible points.  Even
if Abt, through discussions, were able to improve its proposal score to
the maximum 50 points available under the criterion, this would have the
effect of increasing Abt's overall score of 84.25 by only 7 points, to
91.25, which would still be lower than the awardee's score of 92.25. 
Since the awardee's proposed price also was low (by a substantial amount),
this increase in Abt's technical score would not change the outcome of the
competition.  Thus, any failure by the agency to provide adequate
discussions in this area did not prejudice Abt.

   Criterion 3

   Abt asserts that the agency failed to provide it with the opportunity to
respond to several past performance weaknesses identified by the
evaluators.  The agency explains that the weaknesses, identified by two of
the evaluators, were based on comments on some of Abt's past performance
questionnaires.  The agency ultimately determined, however, that since
Abt's numerical scores on the questionnaires were high, there was no need
for a response from Abt.  Although the weaknesses remained in the
evaluation, the agency explains that the only negative impact was the
possible deduction of one point by each of the two evaluators who had
expressed concern.  Supplemental Agency Report (AR) at 26.  Based on the
agency's averaging of evaluator scores in the consensus, restoration of
the two deducted points would only increase Abt's score by one-half
point.[3]  Adding this one-half point to Abt's score--as adjusted above
under criterion 1--its overall score would be 91.75, still below NORC's
overall score.  The agency's explanation is consistent with the record,
and since Abt has not shown otherwise, we conclude that, given NORC's
still higher technical rating and lower cost, Abt was not prejudiced by
any error in its past performance evaluation.[4]

   [5] 

   In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is
confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and
consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
regulations.  United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr.A 9, 2001, 2001 CPD P
75 at 10-11.  A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment
is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. 
Command Mgmt. Servs., Inc., B-292893.2, June 30, 2004, 2004 CPD PA 168 at
3. 

   We have reviewed all of Abt's challenges to the evaluation under these
criteria and find that none has merit.  For example, evaluation criterion
2 covered experience with complex sample surveys, RDD surveys, statistical
modeling of non-sampling errors, the design and conduct of record check
studies and, as to the education and experience of key personnel, covered
publications in these areas, along with specific professional, technical,
or scientific accomplishments.  RFP at 86.  In its initial evaluation, the
agency noted that Abt lacked expertise in [deleted] or recognition of when
[deleted] needs to be accounted for in a survey's methodology.  In
discussions, the agency asked Abt to provide additional documentation in
support of this expertise.  In response, Abt stated that its team
possessed [deleted] in the area, summarized the relevant expertise of its
team, referred the agency to the original proposal's "extensive listing of
papers related to nonsampling errors" authored or co-authored by its
staff, and summarized the expertise of its staff members.  Abt FPR at
48-49.  In Abt's view, its initial proposal and FPR response provided
sufficient information to make this identified weakness unreasonable.  Abt
Initial Comments at 13.  However, upon review of Abt's FPR, while the
agency acknowledged that Abt had listed its key personnel with their areas
of expertise in [deleted] areas, it noted that there was no listing of
[deleted] publications in these areas to substantiate the claims of
relevant expertise.  AR, Tab 8, at 7.  In the agency's view, [deleted]
publications represent the "gold standard" because the reviewers provide
an external and objective evaluation of scientific work.  Evaluator
Declaration at 3-4. 

   We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's evaluation.  The RFP clearly
advised offerors that key personnel were to have specific expertise in
various areas, including non-sampling errors.  While Abt's initial
proposal and FPR stated that the key personnel had the requisite
expertise, Abt did not provide the additional documentation requested in
discussions.  In this regard, apart from a description of its personnel's
expertise, lists of publications, and the title of one book, neither Abt's
initial proposal and FPR, nor its protest submissions, identify which
publications document its personnel's expertise in the questioned area. 
In the absence of the requested documentation, the agency reasonably
identified this as a weakness under criterion 2. 

   As another example, with regard to evaluation criterion 3, offerors were
required to provide their organizational experience and capacity to
acquire qualified staff and to recruit expert consultants in the
disciplines essential to the procurement.  In addition, offerors were
required to express that capacity in instances where it became essential
to obtain expert consultants or qualified subcontractors within a very
short period of time.  RFP at 87.  In its initial evaluation, the agency
found that Abt had not proposed "deep-water" technical experts on staff in
statistical methods for sample surveys.  AR, Tab 4, at 10.  Noting that
Abt had proposed three researchers from universities to serve as potential
consultants, the agency expressed concern as to whether these personnel
would be available on an as-needed basis, since they did not work for Abt
and were documented to have many other commitments.  Id.   In discussions,
the agency pointed to the lack of "deep water" technical experts and asked
whether the firm would be able to provide them on an as-needed basis.  AR,
Tab 6, at 6.  In responding to the agency's concern in its FPR, Abt stated
that its outside consultants [deleted], and reiterated its proposal of
four academically-based experts, each of whom had agreed to provide the
NIS with [deleted] percent of a full-time equivalent (FTE) employee.  Abt
FPR at 56.  Upon review of Abt's response, the agency noted that the
revised proposal did not address the availability of the consultants on an
as-needed basis.  AR, Tab 8, at 8.  In Abt's view, its response was
adequate. 

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  Offerors were required to
demonstrate their capacity to acquire qualified staff and/or expert
consultants within a very short period of time, i.e., on an as-needed
basis.  While Abt's FPR reiterated its agreement with its consultants and
the commitment of each to provide the equivalent of [deleted]A percent of
an FTE, it did not address whether or how these consultants, employed
elsewhere, would be able to make themselves available on an as-needed
basis.  A commitment to provide a consultant for a certain percentage of
an FTE does not equate with availability on short notice.  The agency thus
reasonably identified this as a weakness in Abt's proposal under criterion
3. 

   Id. at 4.

   The evaluation of NORC's proposal under criteria 2 and 3 was
unobjectionable.  The agency explains that it was aware of the depth and
quality of NORC's experience in conducting [deleted] studies and
considered it in its evaluation.  In this regard, during discussions, the
agency specifically asked NORC to provide additional information to
support its ability to provide [deleted] survey of the requisite
magnitude.  In response to this and related questions, NORC submitted some
12 pages of information, plus resumes that included descriptions of its
[deleted] extensive experience with other projects while working for
different companies, including Abt.  Contracting Officer's Statement at
23; NORC FPR at 78-90.  Although the weakness was still reflected in the
FPR evaluation, the agency added as a strength that NORC [deleted] had
experience in surveys much larger than the NIS--including the
[deleted]--and other CDC surveys as large as the NIS.  AR, Tab 8.  The
agency also noted as a strength under criterion 3 that, apart from the
NIS, [deleted] is one of the largest ongoing [deleted] studies in the
U.S.  NORC Evaluation at 4.  In view of the fact that evaluation criteria
2 and 3 encompassed more than just [deleted] experience, and that NORC's
proposal received less than perfect consensus scores under these
criteria--reflecting NORC's limited [deleted] experience--there is no
basis to conclude that the evaluation did not accurately reflect NORC's
actual experience; thus, there is no basis to conclude that the agency's
evaluation of NORC's proposal was flawed.

   Abt asserts that the agency did not conduct a reasonable analysis of
NORC's proposed costs.  In this regard, it asserts that DCAA's cost
realism review was inadequate because it did not discuss whether NORC's
proposed cost elements were realistic for the work to be performed,
reflected a clear understanding of the requirements, and were consistent
with the offeror's unique methods of performance and materials.  Abt also
notes that the agency failed to calculate NORC's probable cost.

   When an agency evaluates proposals for the award of a cost-reimbursement
contract, an offeror's proposed estimated costs are not considered
controlling because, regardless of the costs proposed, the government is
bound to pay the contractor its actual allowable costs.  Federal
Acquisition Regulation SS 15.305(a)(1), 15.404-1(d).  Our review of an
agency's cost realism analysis is limited to whether the analysis is
reasonably based and is not arbitrary.  Systems Integration & Research,
Inc., et al., B-279759.2 et al., Feb. 16, 1999, 99-1 CPD PA 54 at 7-8.  In
this regard, an agency is not required to conduct an in-depth cost
analysis or to verify each and every item in assessing cost realism;
rather, the evaluation requires the exercise of informed judgment by the
contracting agency, which is in the best position to make a realism
determination.  ITT Indus., Inc., B-294389 et al., Oct. 20, 2004, 2004 CPD
PA 222 at 14. 

   The cost realism analysis here was reasonable.  The RFP defined cost
realism as "the offeror's ability to project costs which are reasonable
and indicate that the offeror understands the nature and extent of the
work to be performed."  RFP SA M.1.  To this end, in evaluating NORC's
initially proposed costs (approximately $[deleted]), the agency questioned
various costs, including the firm's [deleted] costs for the first year,
[deleted], and overall high [deleted].  Summary of Negotiations at 8-10. 
NORC responded to each concern in its revised proposal, and lowered its
overall cost by some $[deleted].  DCAA reviewed NORC's revised cost
proposal, including its direct labor rates, labor escalation rates, fringe
benefit rates, general and administrative (G&A) rate, as well as NORC's
rates overall, for realism and possible understatement.  DCAA Cost Report
at 1.  DCAA discussed each of these areas in detailed notes and concluded
that, with limited exceptions (not challenged by Abt), all rates were
consistent with NORC's current rates and were not understated.[6] 
Id.A atA 3-6.  Although the agency was concerned that NORC had
significantly lowered its proposed cost, it considered NORC's explanation
for doing so to be reasonable.  Specifically, NORC explained that the
downward revision was based on the agency's discussion comments indicating
[deleted] initial price; agency concerns about the staff mix; and agency
requests for elimination of costs for innovative ideas.  Award
Determination at 2.  In addition, NORC reduced its [deleted] costs by
adjusting its [deleted]; reduced its [deleted]; and reduced the
[deleted].  Id.  While Abt asserts that the agency failed to determine
NORC's probable costs after reviewing these justifications, it does not
identify any specific adjustments it believes were required. 

   In addition, the agency considered its history with NORC under other CDC
contracts that had been subjected to cost realism analyses and DCAA
audits.  The agency notes that, after more than a decade of experience
with CDC-performed evaluations of NORC business proposals, it has not
found "material questioned cost."  CDC Letter, Jan. 13, 2005.  Based on
its and DCAA's review of NORC's costs and its own history with the firm
under other cost contracts, the agency concluded that there was no reason
to believe that NORC's costs were not achievable, or that the firm did not
understand the work to be performed.  Contracting Officer's Statement at
27.  The contracting officer thus concluded that NORC was able to
satisfactorily perform under the contract at its revised cost amount. 
Award Determination atA 2.

   Abt notes that DCAA did not review NORC's ODCs--which accounted for
approximately [deleted] percent of its proposed costs--for realism. 
Again, however, 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.  ITT Indus., Inc., supra.  The agency notes that, while DCAA did
not review those costs, the realism analysis covered the other [deleted]
percent of the proposal.  The agency further explains that, based on its
prior history with NORC's cost-reimbursement contracts, it did not believe
that this omission necessitated an adjustment to its analysis.  CDC
Letter, Jan. 13, 2005.  Abt has not identified any aspect of NORC's ODCs
that were understated.  In fact, it has not suggested any adjustment that
should have been made to any aspect of NORC's proposed cost despite its
access to the firm's initial and revised cost proposals.  Under these
circumstances, despite the fact that no adjustments were made to NORC's
proposed cost, we find no basis for objecting to the agency's

   cost realism evaluation.  See PAE GmbH Planning and Constr., B-250470,
Jan.A 29, 1993, 93-1 CPD PA 81 at 6-7 (fact that no cost adjustments
resulted from realism evaluation provides no basis for objection where
cost evaluation was otherwise reasonable).

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] A data year is 18 months long--1 calendar year, January 1 through
December 31, plus 6 months of the following year. 

   [2] Abt raises numerous issues in its protest.  We have considered them
all and find that they have no merit or did not prejudice the protester. 
This decision addresses the more significant of Abt's arguments.

   [3] That is, due to the averaging of scores in the consensus process, 2
raw points, when added to the other two evaluators' totals, would be
divided by 4, resulting in a net increase of one-half point.

   [4] We note, moreover, that it is extremely doubtful that the source
selection would change even if Abt received the maximum score of 10 under
criterion 3; even though this would increase its overall consensus score
to 94 points, slightly above NORC's, there is no reason to believe that
this minor scoring advantage would be found to offset NORC's significant
cost advantage.

   [5] In a related argument, Abt asserts that the agency did not adequately
document the evaluation of its proposal.  This assertion is without
merit.  The record contained individual and consensus score sheets, along
with comprehensive lists of Abt's strengths and weaknesses under each
evaluation criterion.  This documentation is sufficient to allow us to
review the bases for the agency's evaluation conclusions.

   [6] DCAA identified one [deleted] rate as being [deleted] than the one
NORC had included under a generic title.  Abt does not assert that any
specific adjustment should be made to NORC's cost proposal to account for
this.  Our own review discloses no reason to adjust for this cost; the
[deleted] was listed elsewhere in NORC's revised cost proposal with the
appropriate [deleted] rate.