B-156865, SEP. 1, 1965

B-156865, SEP. 1, 1965

TO MRS. ELAINE EARL:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 23, 1965, CRITICIZING THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH FOR NOT INVITING YOUR ORGANIZATION TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR FURNISHING CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY ABSTRACTING SERVICES.

THE ABOVE PROJECT WAS FIRST SYNOPSIZED IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ON MARCH 18, 1964. THE ANNOUNCEMENT RECITED THAT ONLY THOSE FIRMS FOUND QUALIFIED WOULD BE INVITED TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS. AFTER SCREENING RESUMES THE SCIENTIFIC STAFF INVITED SIX ORGANIZATIONS TO ATTEND A "CONTRACTOR'S BRIEFING SESSION" . YOUR ORGANIZATION WAS ONE OF THE SIX INVITED. FOLLOWING THE BRIEFING SESSION ALL SIX ORGANIZATIONS WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT TECHNICAL PROPOSALS. ALTHOUGH ACADEMIC MEDICAL LITERATURE, INC., WAS SELECTED AS THE BEST QUALIFIED, AWARD WAS NOT MADE BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. ON MARCH 1, 1965, A LETTER WAS SENT TO EACH OF THE SIX ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY PARTICIPATED ADVISING THAT PROPOSALS WOULD AGAIN BE SOLICITED AND THAT AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO THIS EFFECT WOULD APPEAR IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY.

A NEW SYNOPSIS WAS PUBLISHED IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ON MARCH 30, 1965. AMONG OTHER THINGS THE SYNOPSIS PROVIDED FOR THE SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITY AND EXPERIENCE IN PREPARING ABSTRACTS IN THE FIELD OF CANCER. A CLOSING DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THIS INFORMATION WAS ESTABLISHED AS APRIL 14, 1965.

ON MARCH 26, 1965, THE PROCURING ACTIVITY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM YOUR ORGANIZATION EXPRESSING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED PROCUREMENT. A REPLY TO THIS LETTER WAS MADE ON APRIL 13, 1965. ON APRIL 21, 1965, SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE ESTABLISHED CLOSING DATE, ANOTHER LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM YOUR ORGANIZATION INDICATING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TIME.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY REPORTS THAT A SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION STAFF OF THREE PERSONS WAS CHOSEN TO EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 26, 1965, WAS INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION ALONG WITH THE DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED ON MARCH 18, 1964, IN RESPONSE TO THE EARLIER SYNOPSIS. ON APRIL 27, 1965, THE REVIEWING STAFF RECOMMENDED ACADEMIC MEDICAL LITERATURE, INC., AND AUERBACH CORPORATION AS THOSE FIRMS BEST QUALIFIED. IT WAS THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THE EVALUATION STAFF THAT RESPONSES TO THE SYNOPSIS SUBMITTED BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING ACADEMIC MEDICAL LITERATURE, DID NOT INDICATE POSSESSION OF CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE.

ALTHOUGH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM YOUR ORGANIZATION ON APRIL 21, 1965, WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL EVALUATION, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT A REVIEW OF THE MATERIAL AT THIS TIME DOES NOT SHOW ANY BASIS FOR CHANGING THE FORMER CONCLUSION.

UPON REVIEW WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY LEGAL BASIS TO QUESTION THE PROPOSED AWARD. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT PROPOSALS BE SOLICITED FROM THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF QUALIFIED SOURCES, THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH ORGANIZATIONS ARE IN FACT QUALIFIED INVOLVES THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY. WHERE THIS JUDGMENT IS EXERCISED IN GOOD FAITH AND IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED OUR OFFICE CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY AND IS NOT IN ANY POSITION TO INTERPOSE AN OBJECTION, ABSENT A SHOWING OF UNDUE FAVORITISM OR ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS ACTION. B-152598, DECEMBER 3, 1963. IN THE PRESENT CASES, THE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION STAFF AFTER DUE DELIBERATION CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT YOUR FIRM POSSESSED THE NECESSARY CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE. SINCE WE HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION THIS DETERMINATION WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO DENY YOUR PROTEST.