[Protest of NIDA Contract Award]

A firm protested a contract award by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for inquiry screening and public dissemination support for a drug abuse information clearinghouse. The protester alleged that the awardee's proposal did not include the required assurances that a key person would be available to perform the contract. GAO found it reasonable for the awardee to include a resume as an assurance of commitment, since there was no definition of the required letter of commitment for key personnel in the solicitation. The protester also alleged that, if storage space other than single tier were acceptable, NIDA should have notified the offerers. GAO found that the solicitation requirement was satisfied by either multiple- or single-tier storage and that the solicitation was not ambiguous. The protester argued that its facility better met the proximity criterion than the awardee's facility, which was more than 25 miles from the clearinghouse. GAO stated that, since proximity was not defined in the solicitation, acceptance of the distance was reasonable, given the finding by NIDA that contract performance would not be adversely affected. The protester also questioned its ranking because of minor errors by NIDA in evaluating the proposal. GAO stated that no prejudice accrued to the protester as a result of these minor errors. Accordingly, the protest was denied.