TITLE: B-299307.4; B-299308.4, Panacea Consulting, Inc., July 27, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299307.4; B-299308.4
DATE: July 27, 2007
***************************************************************
B-299307.4; B-299308.4, Panacea Consulting, Inc., July 27, 2007

   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: Panacea Consulting, Inc.

   File: B-299307.4; B-299308.4

   Date: July 27, 2007

   Lars E. Anderson, Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Peter A. Riesen, Esq.,
   and Keir X. Bancroft, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester.

   Lawrence E. Carr, Esq., Dana G. Theriot, Esq., and Justin T.Banford, Esq.,
   Carr, Morris & Graeff, PC, and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
   LLP, for Systems Integration & Development, Inc., an intervenor.

   Herman J. Narcho, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency.

   Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency's evaluation and source selection decisions are
   unreasonable is sustained where record lacks any meaningful explanation
   for evaluation scores and source selection decisions.

   DECISION

   Panacea Consulting, Inc. protests the issuance of two task orders to
   Systems Integration and Development, Inc. (SID) under solicitation Nos.
   FY07FA1-64079E446-0001 (solicitation 446) and FY07FA3-64079E448-001
   (solicitation 448), issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for,
   respectively, project management support services and core research and
   development support services. Panacea asserts that the agency made errors
   in its evaluation of submissions and in its selection decisions.

   We sustain the protest.

   The solicitations contemplated the issuance of task orders under the
   successful vendor's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract for a base
   year, with four 1-year options, to perform various professional services
   on an as-needed basis.[1] For purposes of preparing their price
   submissions, vendors were given a list of specific labor positions and a
   fixed number of hours for each performance period. Vendors were to
   calculate prices based on the number of hours specified in the
   solicitations, multiplied by the hourly rates they proposed for each
   position.

   The evaluation was to be on a "best value" basis, considering price and
   two non-price factors. Under solicitation 446, submissions were to be
   evaluated based on the qualifications of the proposed staff evaluation
   factor (70 percent of the non-price evaluation weight), and understanding
   of the statement of work (SOW), relevant experience, capabilities, and
   approach evaluation factor (30 percent of non-price weight). Overall, the
   non-price and price factors were weighted at 55 and 45 percent of the
   total evaluation, respectively. Under solicitation 448, 75 percent of the
   non-price evaluation weight was allotted to the qualifications of proposed
   personnel evaluation factor, with 25 percent allotted to the understanding
   of the SOW, relevant experience, capabilities, and approach evaluation
   factor. The non-price and price factors were weighted at 70 and 30 percent
   of the total evaluation, respectively.

   The agency received numerous responses to the solicitations and, after
   evaluation thereof, issued the two task orders to SID, finding that SID's
   submissions represented the best value. After learning of the selection
   decisions, Panacea protested to our Office. We developed the record in
   those protests, and thereafter conducted an "outcome prediction"
   alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference.[2] During the ADR, the
   cognizant GAO attorney advised the parties that the protests appeared to
   be meritorious, insofar as the record showed that the agency had
   improperly weighted the price and technical considerations in assigning
   the numeric evaluation scores on which the source selection decisions were
   based, and that the record contained no narrative support for the scores.
   Accordingly, the GAO attorney advised the agency that it could address
   these concerns by reevaluating submissions in a manner consistent with the
   terms of the solicitations, and preparing narrative materials to explain
   the basis for the point scores assigned and the source selection decisions
   made.

   In response to the ADR, the agency advised our Office that it intended to
   take corrective action by rescoring the submissions in a manner consistent
   with the terms of the solicitations, and by documenting its scoring. We
   dismissed Panacea's protests as academic (B-299307 et al., Mar. 28, 2007).

   The agency implemented its proposed corrective action by rescoring the
   submissions. Additionally, the agency prepared narrative materials to
   describe the rescoring process. The agency concluded that SID's
   submissions represented the best value to the government, considering
   price and the non-price considerations. (Under solicitation 446, the
   agency found SID [deleted]to Panacea, and SID offered a [deleted] (SID
   offered a price of $[deleted] versus Panacea's price of $[deleted]); under
   solicitation 448, the agency similarly found SID [deleted], and it also
   offered a [deleted] than Panacea (SID offered a price of $[deleted] versus
   Panacea's price of $[deleted].) On the basis of these revised evaluation
   materials, the agency affirmed its prior source selection decisions, again
   concluding that SID's submissions--which received the highest overall
   score under each acquisition--represented the best value. Panacea
   challenges the new source selection decisions.

   SUBMISSION REEVALUATION

   Panacea again challenges the agency's evaluation scoring and source
   selection decisions, and also continues to maintain that there is
   inadequate documentation to establish that the evaluations were
   reasonable.

   The agency takes the position that it never agreed to completely
   reevaluate the submissions. Rather, the agency maintains that, at the time
   of the ADR procedure, it understood that there were mathematical or
   methodological errors in its calculation of the point scores; that it
   agreed to correct these errors; and agreed that it would document the
   basis for assigning the new scores and for the source selection decisions.
   In support of its position, the agency directs our attention to the letter
   to our Office in which it advised us that it would take corrective action,
   stating that it would "normalize the technical scores so that both
   technical and cost scores will be normalized and give them the required
   weight in the evaluation; and provide a narrative explaining the basis for
   the final scores and the selection decision." Agency Corrective Action
   Letter, Mar. 27, 2007.

   In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selection
   decisions, it is not our role to reevaluate submissions; rather, we will
   examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was
   reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria and
   applicable procurement laws and regulations. See Abt Assocs., Inc.,
   B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 223 at 4. However, for our
   Office to perform a meaningful review, the record must contain adequate
   documentation showing the bases for the evaluation conclusions and source
   selection decision. OSI Collection Servs., Inc., B-286597, B-286597.2,
   Jan. 17, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 18 at 8.

   Here, notwithstanding the agency's stated understanding as to what its
   corrective action would entail, the fact is that the record provided to
   our Office in response to the protest does not contain sufficient
   information to support the evaluations or source selection decisions.
   Under solicitation 446, for example, the record includes a description of
   the agency's method for scoring the submissions under the understanding of
   the SOW, relevant experience, capabilities, and approach evaluation
   factor. The description states that the agency prepared a matrix that
   included standards for the award of point scores ranging from 0 points
   (for an unsatisfactory submission) to 10 points (for an excellent
   submission), and states further that the evaluators populated this matrix
   with the raw point scores assigned to the submissions under five
   subfactors (such as the vendor's understanding of the SOW, and the
   vendor's approach to staff retention). Protest, exh. 1. This explanation
   goes on to state, mathematically, how the agency calculated the ultimate
   scores for the price and non-price factors. Id. However, the record does
   not include any explanation of the bases for assigning the raw point
   scores in the first place; that is, there is no indication of, for
   example, any evaluated strengths or weaknesses in the proposals that
   support the assigned scores.

   The record does include one evaluator's worksheets prepared in connection
   with solicitation 446. Agency Report (AR) exh. 12. The worksheets include
   some limited comments, but the comments do not relate the evaluator's
   conclusions about the submissions to the scores assigned. Further, the
   worksheets reflect the views of only one of the three evaluators who
   participated in the evaluation and, thus, in no way can serve as a
   substitute for a narrative explanation of the consensus scores assigned to
   the submissions. Protest exh. 2. Moreover, the agency states that, since
   this evaluator's worksheets were prepared during the original evaluation,
   they are irrelevant to the current evaluation. Agency Supplemental
   Submission, June 15, 2007, at 2.

   The evaluation materials for solicitation 448 are similarly inadequate. As
   is the case with the other solicitation, the record contains a document
   describing the scoring matrix, which identifies the standards for
   assigning point scores of 0 to 10 as well as various subfactors used in
   the scoring. Protest exh. 3. Also, as with the other solicitation, the
   record fails to explain what features of the submissions led the agency to
   score them as it did. As with solicitation 446, the agency submitted some
   individual scoresheets for solicitation 448. AR exhs. 9, 11. However, all
   of these scoresheets were prepared by a single evaluator and contain only
   brief, often cryptic, notations regarding the basis for the scores
   assigned. In all of the scoresheets for solicitation 448, the portion of
   the scoresheet relating to the understanding of the SOW, relevant
   experience, capabilities and approach evaluation factor is entirely blank,
   containing neither point scores nor narrative explanation. Id. Further,
   there are several scoring anomalies that are nowhere explained. For
   example, the agency assigned one of SID's employees a score of 13 points
   under a subfactor with a maximum of 10 points available, and also assigned
   both a score of 5 and a score of 3 (which were added together) under
   another subfactor, again without any explanation. AR exh. 9, SID
   Scoresheet, at 4; exh. 11, SID Scoresheet, at 4. The record also contains
   no source selection decision document for either solicitation prepared in
   connection with the agency's corrective action.

   Point scores cannot be used as a substitute for adequate documentation
   showing the bases for the evaluation conclusions reached and source
   selection decisions made. OSI Collection Servs., Inc., supra, at 8. We
   conclude that the record contains insufficient documentation to explain
   the basis for the evaluations and the source selection decisions;
   accordingly, we sustain this aspect of Panacea's protest.

   RECOMMENDATION

   In view of the forgoing discussion, we sustain Panacea's protests.[3] In
   fashioning our recommendation, we note that the record shows that, as to
   both the protester and the awardee, circumstances may have changed with
   respect to the availability of their previously identified employees
   because of the time that has passed since receipt of submissions.
   Accordingly, the agency should consider obtaining revised submissions.
   Whether or not it obtains revised submissions, we recommend that the
   agency evaluate the submissions and document the bases for its evaluation
   conclusions and source selection decisions. If, at the conclusion of these
   activities, the agency determines that a vendor other than SID is properly
   in line for award, we further recommend that the agency cancel the task
   orders awarded to SID and issue task orders to the successful vendor, if
   otherwise proper. We also recommend that Panacea be reimbursed the costs
   of filing and pursuing its protest as to the sustained issues, including
   reasonable attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1) (2007). Panacea
   should submit its certified claim for those costs, detailing the time
   spent and the costs incurred, within 60 days of its receipt of our
   decision. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1).

   The protest is sustained.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency, citing 41 U.S.C. sect. 253j(d) (2000) (which generally
   prohibits protests against the issuance of a task or delivery order under
   indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts), asserts that our
   Office lacks jurisdiction to consider these protests because it is placing
   task orders against blanket purchase agreements entered into between the
   agency and vendors pursuant to the vendors' FSS contracts. The agency is
   incorrect. The task orders ultimately are to be placed against the
   successful vendor's FSS contract. The limitation on our jurisdiction to
   consider task/delivery order protests does not extend to orders issued
   under the FSS. Thus, the protests here are subject to our jurisdiction.
   Severn Cos., Inc., B-275717.2, Apr. 28, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 181 at 2-3
   n.1; see also CMS Info. Servs., Inc., B-290541, Aug. 7, 2002, 2002 CPD
   para. 132 at 4 n.7 (no basis to distinguish between issuance of task
   orders and blanket purchase agreements under the FSS since, in both cases,
   the acquiring activity ultimately is placing orders against a vendor's FSS
   contract).

   [2] For a description of the outcome prediction ADR process, see Alaska
   Structures, Inc.--Costs, B-298575.4, Jan. 22, 2007, 2007 CPD para.17 at 4
   n.4.

   [3] Panacea raised numerous additional arguments in its protest. Some of
   those issues (specifically, those relating to the propriety of the
   agency's scoring of submissions and source selection decisions) are
   academic in light of our recommendation that the agency reevaluate
   submissions. As to Panacea's remaining assertions, we have fully
   considered them and find that they are without merit. For example, Panacea
   asserts that the branch chief for research and development is biased
   against it, as evidenced by his circulating a memorandum to contractor
   employees, prior to receipt of submissions, stating that there was no
   reason why an individual's resume could not be submitted by more than one
   vendor. Protest exh. 7. Since there is nothing inherently improper in more
   than one vendor submitting the same personnel, an agency official's
   remarking on this fact does not evidence bias.