Allegation That Agency Deviated From RFP Evaluation Criteria

Science Management Corporation protested the award of a contract for three research monographs to evaluate drug abuse prevention programs to the Institute for Survey Research (ISR), Temple University, by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Science Management asserted that NIDA deviated from its request for proposal (RFP) evaluation criteria in appraising Science Management's proposal, that NIDA improperly conducted a second round of negotiations exclusively with ISR, and that the evaluation was tainted by apparent or potential bias on the part of one of the technical evaluators. Science Research objected to losing points from its technical score in the proposal evaluation for estimating the time commitment significantly below the agency's calculation of staff years to be allotted to the project. NIDA, however, merely concluded, properly, that such a severe reduction in allowed time would jeopardize Science Management's ability to perform the work. The alleged "second round of negotiations" with ISR only consisted of obtaining a justification for the project manager's salary; there was no reason to hold comparable discussions with the protester because its salary structure was not held in question. One of the technical evaluators, a paid consultant for Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), was accused in the protest of conflict of interest in favor of ISR because of past professional relationships. Since he had only served for 2 days with a firm doing business with ISR, and since he had no remaining contractual obligation to that firm, the alleged conflict of interest was too remote for consideration. The protester also questioned making the award to ISR at 20 percent above Science Research's bid, but this was based on technical excellence, not cost, and that is a matter for the agency's judgment. The protest was disallowed on all points.