Comptroller General

of the United States

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

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: Information Ventures, Inc. 

File: B-299361.2; B-299361.3

Date: October 1, 2008 

John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., Smith 

Pachter McWhorter, for the protester. 

Thomas K. David, Esq., and Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, 

LLP, for Gryphon Scientific, LLC, an intervenor. 

Jonathan A. Baker, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. 

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal, submitted in response to a 

solicitation for the management of chemical and biological databases, was 

reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, where the 

protester’s proposal was downgraded because, among other things, one of the 

proposed key personnel lacked certain experience and training, and where the 

protester’s initial proposal and final proposal revision stated that certain details

regarding the protester’s proposed approach were not provided because of what the 

protester viewed as informational deficiencies in the solicitation, and that this

information would be provided during contract performance. 

2. Discussions conducted by the agency were meaningful where they identified the 

evaluated deficiencies and significant weaknesses in the protester’s proposal; there 

is no requirement that discussions be all encompassing, or that an agency, in 

identifying the deficiencies and significant weakness in a proposal, also identify 

possible solutions to those deficiencies and significant weaknesses. 

DECISION 

Information Ventures, Inc. (IVI) protests the award of a contract to Gryphon 

Scientific, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIH-NIAID-DAIDS-07-27, 

issued by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), 

Department of Health and Human Services, for the management of certain chemical 
and biological databases. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of its 

proposal was unreasonable. 

We deny the protest.

The RFP provided for the award of a “cost-reimbursement, completion-type contract

with a period of performance of seven (7) years.” RFP amend. 4, at 2. The 

contractor will be required to manage “chemical and biological databases which 

serve as tools for the rational selection and discovery of potential therapies for AIDS 

[acquired immunodeficiency syndrome] and opportunistic infections (OIs).” RFP 

amend. 3, attach. 4, at 1. The solicitation listed 10 “major tasks” to be performed by 

the contractor, including, for example, “Literature Surveillance,” “Abstraction of

Data and Updating of Database,” and “Assembly of Preclinical Information Search 

Requests.” Id. at 2. The RFP also included specific descriptions of the work required

under each major task, providing, for example, under the “Literature Surveillance” 

task that the contractor would, among other things, “[m]onitor current publications

(including U.S. and foreign patents) in chemistry, virology, immunology, 

microbiology, biochemistry and biology, and identify relevant published research 

findings on experimental therapies for HIV [human immunodeficiency virus] and 

OIs.” Id.

The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the 

proposal determined to represent the best value to the government based upon the 

following evaluation factors set forth in descending order of importance: technical, 

cost/price, and past performance. RFP amend. 3, at 3. The solicitation added that 

the technical factor was comprised of the following evaluation criteria: Scientific 

and Professional Personnel (40 points), Technical Approach (40 points), Project 

Management (10 points), and Facilities and Resources (10 points). Id. at 3-5. In 

addition to specifying what the agency would evaluate under each factor and 

criterion, the solicitation informed offerors that the agency’s evaluation would “be 

based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to 

the needs of the project as set forth in the RFP,” and admonished offerors that 

“[e]ach proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the 

requirements of the RFP.” Id. at 3. 

The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, requesting, 

among other things, that offerors submit technical and business proposals. Business

proposals were to include, among other things, support for the offerors’ proposed 

costs and/or price, uniform cost assumptions, and past performance data. Offerors

were informed that technical proposals were to include sections corresponding to

the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria; they were to provide details regarding the 

scientific and professional personnel proposed to perform the contract, the 

proposed technical approach, including the identified major tasks, the proposed 

approach to project management, and the proposed facilities and resources. The 

RFP advised that the agency’s evaluation under the technical approach criterion 

Page 2 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
would include an assessment of the 

[a]dequacy and feasibility of the technical approaches and proposed 

plans to survey the literature and select citations that contain chemical 

and biological information on experimental therapies for HIV and OIs;

to identify and abstract relevant chemical and biological information; 

to determine the validity and authenticity of the data; and to update the 

chemical and biological databases, the literature citation database, and 

the publicly available Web database with the corresponding 

information. 

RFP amend. 3, at 4. The solicitation stated that the evaluation under the technical 

approach criterion would also include, among other things, an assessment of the 

[a]dequacy and appropriateness of the proposed data management

procedures for updating and maintenance of the databases, quality 

control, disaster recovery, software maintenance, and security and 

confidentiality of the data; adequacy of approaches for overcoming 

potential problems in the administration of a reliable, efficient, fully 

operational and responsive data management system. 

RFP amend. 6, at 5. 

On January 8, 2007, 1 day prior to the due date for receipt of proposals, IVI filed a 

protest with our Office challenging the terms of the solicitation. This protest argued 

that “the agency failed to disclose in its solicitation sufficient information to enable 

offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.” AR, Tab 15, Protest 

B-299361, at 1. IVI alleged that the agency’s “actions in conducting the acquisition 

indicate bad faith, or bias in favor of the incumbent [contractor],” as evidenced by 

the agency’s alleged failure “to fully disclose each of its requirements.”1

 Id. at 2. The 

protest continued by challenging the propriety of the RFP’s evaluation factors and 

criteria, and describing at considerable length certain information that the protester 

felt was required to be provided by the agency in order for IVI to effectively compete 

for the award. 

Our Office conducted an alternative dispute resolution conference with the parties,

which resulted in the agency’s determination to “take corrective action” that would 

include “amending the solicitation and reopening the time period for submission of

proposals.” In light of the agency’s actions, and based upon the protester’s

agreement, on March 20, 2007, our Office dismissed IVI’s protest as academic. The 

agency subsequently amended the solicitation an additional four times, responding 

in these amendments to more than 20 questions posed by offerors. 

 1

 The incumbent contractor was not the awardee here. 

Page 3 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
The agency received proposals from four offerors, including IVI and Gryphon, and 

included each of the proposals in the competitive range. AR, Tab 12, Source 

Selection Determination, at 1. The agency provided each of the four offerors with 

written discussion questions, followed by oral discussions. 

Gryphon’s final proposal revisions (FPR) received the highest technical and past

performance ratings of the four proposals submitted, with a technical score of 88 out

of 100 points, and a past performance rating of “excellent,” at an evaluated cost of 

$6,699,156. Id. at 4. The cognizant contracting officer, acting as the source selection 

official, found that Gryphon’s FPR was “significantly improved” from its initial 

proposal, and included various major strengths, including a “very strong scientific 

team with appropriate expertise for database and web development,” a “streamlined” 

staff coordination plan, and “outstanding” hardware, software, and technical plans. 

Id. at 2. 

IVI’s FPR received the third-highest technical score of 79 points, and a past 

performance rating of “good,” at an evaluated cost of $6,253,599. Id. at 4. The 

contracting officer found that IVI’s FPR “did not improve the proposal significantly” 

from its initial proposal, and noted that the IVI’s proposed “Principal Investigator” 

had a “lack of documented familiarity with microbiological research in the areas of 

HIV and [OIs],” which was a proposal weakness, and that IVI’s “[r]esponses to

questions regarding technical approach were detailed, but did not demonstrate 

proactive solutions to the issues raised.” Id. at 3. 

 

Based on Gryphon’s technically superior proposal and excellent past performance, 

its proposal was determined to be the best value, notwithstanding its higher price. 

Award was therefore made to Gryphon and this protest followed. 

IVI challenges the evaluation of its proposal. The evaluation of proposals is a matter 

within the discretion of the contracting agency, and in reviewing protests against 

allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our 

Office examines the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was 

reasonable and in accord with the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. PDI 

Ground Support Sys., Inc., B-299007; B-299007.2, Jan. 18, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 64 at 4. 

The judgments in the evaluation of proposals are subjective by nature; nonetheless,

the judgments must be reasonable and bear a rational relationship to the announced

criteria upon which the competing offers are selected. Population Health Servs., 

Inc., B-202858, Dec. 1, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 217 at 3. An offeror’s mere disagreement 

with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. PDI Ground Support 

Sys., Inc., supra. 

The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of IVI’s proposal under the 

technical approach criterion was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation 

because the solicitation did not specifically provide for the evaluation of “proactive 

solutions.” 

Page 4 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
In order to understand this issue, some background discussion is necessary. In

evaluating IVI’s initial proposal under the technical approach criterion, the agency 

evaluators, while noting certain “strengths” in IVI’s proposed approach, also found 

that IVI’s proposal presented numerous “weaknesses.” AR, Tab 3, Initial Technical 

Evaluation, at 23-27. For example, the agency noted as a weakness that it was 

“difficult to evaluate the technical section of this proposal, since major technical 

details have been postponed until the award of the contract.” Id. at 25. The agency’s 

evaluation enumerated specific areas where IVI’s proposal failed to provide support

for its proposed approach or technical details, noting, for example, that the “[t]he 

Software Engineering section of [IVI’s] proposal is not discussed in detail,” the 

“security section is vague,” the “Policies and procedures are described vaguely,” and 

the “[t]he search algorithms have not been justified and the technical details have not

been provided.” Id. at 26. IVI’s initial proposal received 28.57 out of 40 available 

points under the technical approach criterion. Id. at 42. 

The agency specifically raised each of these weaknesses with IVI in written 

discussions, and the record reflects that IVI asked the agency questions, and 

received answers, regarding the evaluated weaknesses in IVI’s proposal. AR, Tab 5, 

Notification to IVI of Competitive Range Inclusion and Discussions Questions

(Feb. 1, 2008); Tab 6, Agency Responses to IVI’s Questions (Feb. 14, 2008). 

The agency subsequently requested and received IVI’s FPR. AR, Tab 7, Request for 

FPRs. In addition to providing more specific responses to the agency’s discussion 

questions, IVI’s FPR stated (apparently by way of an introduction) that

[a] reiterated theme in [the agency’s] technical questions and/or 

comments, appears to be that IVI’s technical approach lacked adequate 

detail and that technical decisions were postponed until after contract

award. With respect to this perception/characterization of our 

technical approach, we wish to point out that there was little 

information available prior to proposal submission to address the 

review committee’s concerns. 

AR, Tab 16, IVI FPR, Responses to Technical Questions and/or Comments, 

at 1. The protester’s FPR continued by listing information that was not

included in the solicitation, but in the protester’s view, apparently should 

have been. Id. The protester’s FPR responded in a similar manner to one of

the evaluated weaknesses pointed out by the agency during discussions, in 

stating that 

[i]n the course of preparing our technical approach, we made a 

substantial effort to learn more about the NIAID Databases through

our questions. However, we received only partial responses to our 

questions or were told that substantive information was not available

to the Government. Under these circumstances, we had no alternative 

other than to postpone critical decisions on technical details until 

Page 5 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
substantive information about existing database structures and 

practices became available. To address concern for greater detail, we 

have provided additional information on possible alternative 

approaches and more detailed plans for conducting the proposed 

project in our responses below. 

Id. at 12. 

The evaluators, while noting that IVI had again asserted in its FPR that it had not 

been provided with “sufficient information from the Government in order to develop 

[IVI’s] technical approach,” found that IVI had in fact provided “some possible 

alternative approaches” that were “straightforward and standard.” AR, Tab 8, FPR 

Evaluation, at 23. The evaluators noted, however, that “while some issues were 

addressed, the offeror was still vague in proposed approaches in other areas,” and 

that because of this “the offeror’s approach was fragmented and doesn’t demonstrate 

how [IVI] will perform all aspects of the proposed contract.” Id. In summarizing the 

evaluators’ views regarding IVI’s FPR with regard to the technical approach 

criterion, the cognizant contracting specialist noted that while IVI’s responses were 

“detailed,” they “did not demonstrate proactive solutions to the issues raised.” AR, 

Tab 10, Evaluation Summary, at 1. The agency increased the rating of IVI’s proposal 

under the technical approach criterion from 28.57 to 31 points, given the added detail 

provided in IVI’s FPR. AR, Tab 8, Summary Evaluation, at 9. 

In its protest, IVI seizes upon the statement that IVI’s proposal “did not demonstrate 

proactive solutions to the issues raised,” see AR, Tab 10, Evaluation Summary, at 1, 

and argues that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable and not in accordance 

with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria because the solicitation did not state that 

“proactive solutions” were required. The protester also complains at length that its

proposal should not have been criticized by the evaluators under the technical 

approach criterion, given that IVI “lacked information about aspects of the agency’s 

work” and thus “had no alternative other than to postpone critical decisions on the 

technical details” until such information became available. Protester’s Comments 

at 13. IVI asserts here, as it did in its proposal, that when it asked for this

information, it was given “only partial responses by the agency” or was informed by 

the agency “that substantive information was not available to the government.” Id. 

The protester continues by arguing that IVI’s lack of access to certain information 

that IVI felt was necessary to prepare its proposal “is the same issue IVI raised in its 

pre-award protest and that IVI thought was resolved by the agency pre-award 

corrective action.” Id. at 2. 

The agency explains that the comment that IVI’s proposal “did not demonstrate 

proactive solutions to the issues raised” was meant to convey the agency’s primary 

concern that the protester, in a number of instances in both in its initial proposal and 

FPR, “chose to attack the RFP rather than to respond to it constructively.” AR at 5-6. 

Although the protester spends considerable time in its pleadings arguing that the 

Page 6 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
agency’s criticism here is inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, we disagree. 

In our view, the agency’s statement regarding IVI’s FPR’s failure to provide 

“proactive solutions” is consistent with the technical approach criterion in that it

adequately captures the agency’s primary concern that, as reflected by the record, 

IVI chose in both its initial proposal, and FPR response to discussions, to criticize 

the solicitation, and then to provide a technical approach that, in IVI’s own terms,

lacked certain details that would only be provided to the agency after award based 

upon IVI’s view that the solicitation was inadequate. 

We also agree with the agency that IVI’s repeated assertions in its initial proposal, 

FPR, and submissions filed with our Office during the pendency of this protest,

regarding what it believes are in the inadequacies of the solicitation and their 

resultant impact on IVI’s ability to effectively respond to the needs of the agency as

reflected in the solicitation and the merits of the solicitation as evaluated by the 

agency, constitute challenges to the terms of the solicitation that should have been 

protested before the initial closing time for submission of proposals and are thus

untimely filed. 4 C.F.R § 21.2(a)(1) (2008); Paraclete Contracts, B-299883, Sept. 11, 

2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 153 at 3 n.4; KCI, Inc., B-244690, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD ¶ 395 at 3. 

Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of

protests. They specifically require that a protest based upon alleged improprieties in 

a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of initial 

proposals be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1). 

The protester also argues that its FPR effectively responded to the evaluated 

weaknesses in its initial proposal, such that its proposal’s score under the technical 

approach criterion should have been higher than 31 out of 40 points.2

 

Our review of the record evidences that the agency did reasonably account for the 

FPR responses in the final evaluation. Although IVI’s FPR includes responses to the 

discussion questions posed by the agency, it is unclear, and the protester does not 

explain, how the responses addressed the agency’s concerns that the proposed 

technical approach was “fragmented” and remained “vague” in some areas. See

Agency Supplemental Report at 5-6; AR, Tab 8, Summary Evaluation, at 23. As 

pointed out by the agency, the concerns stem in part from IVI’s repeated complaints, 

which originated in its pre-award protest and continued through its initial proposal 

and its FPR, that the solicitation did not include the information necessary for IVI to

submit a complete proposal. Agency Supplemental Report at 5-6; see AR, Tab 16, IVI 

FPR, Responses to Technical Questions and/or Comments, at 1, 12, 28-29, 37. Under 

the circumstances and given the discretion accorded agencies in the evaluation of 

proposals, the statements in IVI’s FPR that the lack of information set forth in the 

 2

 In support of this contention, for many of the weaknesses, the protester quotes the 

weakness and its FPR response, and concludes that this demonstrates that the 

agency did not account for the FPR response.

Page 7 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
RFP required that IVI, for example, postpone critical decisions on technical details

until after award, and the protester’s failure to demonstrate why the agency’s 

evaluation of IVI’s proposal under the technical approach criterion was

unreasonable, we believe that IVI’s complaints here represent no more than its mere 

disagreement with the agency’s evaluation. 

The protester also argues that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the 

RFP’s scientific and professional personnel criterion was unreasonable. IVI

contends that the agency’s determination that the evaluated lack of experience and 

documented expertise of IVI’s proposed Principal Investigator with HIV research 

constituted a weakness was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation and 

unreasonable. 

As relevant here, the RFP requested that technical proposals include a section 

concerning the scientific and professional personnel proposed to perform the 

contract, with this section including “all information relevant to document 

education, training, accomplishments, and relevant experience of all proposed 

personnel.” RFP amend. 5, attach. 6, at 1. With regard to the Principal Investigator 

position, the solicitation requested a description of “the experience, training, 

expertise, qualifications, and percentage of effort of the Principal Investigator 

proposed to lead and direct the activities to be carried out under this contract.” 

Id. at 2. The solicitation informed offerors that “the Principal Investigator should 

have education and experience commensurate with his/her expected role,” and 

among other things, requested a description of the proposed Principal Investigator’s

“experience in leading and directing projects of comparable content and complexity 

and familiarity with past and current microbiological research in the areas of HIV 

and opportunistic infections (OI), antivirals, and other antimicrobials.” Id. The 

solicitation advised offerors that the evaluation of proposals under the Scientific and 

Professional Personnel criterion would include an assessment of the 

[a]dequacy and suitability of the documented training expertise, 

education, training and availability of the Principal Investigator for 

planning, managing and directing the proposed activities in the 

Statement of Work including experience in administering a project of 

comparable content and complexity; experience and training in one or 

more of the following: medicinal chemistry/biology, microbiology or 

virology; and familiarity with past and current research in the areas of

HIV and opportunistic infections (OI), antivirals, antimicrobials, and 

microbiology. Documented knowledge and expertise in the computer 

science aspects of the database software/hardware similar to that used

under this contract. 

RFP amend. 3, at 3. 

Page 8 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
In evaluating IVI’s initial proposal, the agency noted as a strength that the proposed 

Principal Investigator “has research and teaching experience in biophysics, 

endocrinology, cellular developmental biology, electromagnetic fields and cancer,” 

and “more than 21 years of experience in directing contracts relating to scientific 

database creation, and maintenance.” AR, Tab 3, Initial Technical Evaluation, at 21. 

However, the agency also specifically noted as a weakness that IVI’s proposed 

Principal Investigator “lacks formal training in the HIV field,” and that the proposed 

Principal Investigator “will rely heavily on his consultants for guidance on how to 

perform the required duties, because he has little or no knowledge relating to 

microbiology, immunology, or chemistry.” Id. at 23. The agency, while recognizing 

that the IVI’s Principal Investigator would “be under the tutelage” of an expert in the 

requisite fields, concluded that such “self-study, although helpful, is not a direct

replacement for formal training.” Id. The evaluators also noted that IVI’s proposed 

Principal Investigator “lacks sufficient experience in the field of IT support and 

troubleshooting software and database development.” Id. The evaluators found a 

number of other weaknesses in IVI’s proposal under the scientific and professional 

personnel criterion, and gave IVI’s initial proposal a rating of 26.36 out of 40 points

under this criterion. 

The agency informed the protester of its concerns with IVI’s proposed Principal 

Investigator during discussions. IVI responded in its FPR by assuring the agency that

the proposed Principal Investigator was, among other things, attending seminars to

“augment his HIV/OI knowledge and background.” AR, Tab 16, IVI FPR, Responses

to Technical Questions and/or Comments, at 4. IVI’s FPR also responded that the 

agency’s expressed concerns regarding the proposed Principal Investigator “hinges

on what is considered ‘sufficient experience’ for performing the [Principal 

Investigator’s] duties.” Id. IVI’s FPR continued by expressing its view that “[f]ormal 

training in the HIV field was not a requirement of the RFP and therefore is not a valid 

criterion for evaluation,” and that “[f]ormal training is not equivalent to the RFP 

evaluation factor of ‘familiarity with past and current research’ in the HIV field.” Id. 

IVI’s FPR added that in its view, its proposed Principal Investigator “is more than 

well qualified to perform” the duties for which he was proposed. Id. IVI’s FPR

responded to the agency’s concern that the Principal Investigator lacked certain 

“computer science” knowledge and expertise by quoting the sentence in the RFP 

providing that such expertise and knowledge would be evaluated, and stating that 

“[w]e do not view this as a reasonable minimum need to be carried out by the 

[Principal Investigator].” Id. at 5. 

The agency found that while IVI’s FPR addressed a number of the weaknesses in 

IVI’s initial proposal as evaluated under the scientific and professional personnel 

Page 9 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
criterion, concerns remained regarding IVI’s proposed Principal Investigator.3

 AR, 

Tab 8, Second Technical Evaluation, at 13. The agency did increase the rating of 

IVI’s proposal under the scientific and professional personnel criterion from 26.36 to

29.20 points, given IVI’s responses to other issued raised during discussions

regarding this aspect of IVI’s proposal. AR, Tab 8, Summary Evaluation, at 9. 

IVI again argues, as it did in its FPR, that the agency’s evaluation of its proposed 

Principal Investigator was inconsistent with the terms of the RFP. We disagree. 

Simply put, the consideration whether offeror’s proposed Principal Investigator had, 

or lacked, formal training in the HIV field is rationally related to the evaluation of the 

“education [and] training . . . of the Principal Investigator for planning, managing and 

directing the proposed activities in the Statement of Work.” See RFP amend. 3, at 3. 

Accordingly, given that IVI’s proposed Principal Investigator lacked certain formal 

training in the HIV field, and lacked certain “computer science” knowledge, we have 

no basis to object to the agency’s determination that IVI’s proposed Principal 

Investigator’s relative lack of training constituted a weakness in its proposal. 

IVI next argues that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions regarding 

certain weaknesses in IVI’s proposal as evaluated under the technical factor. 

Discussions, when conducted, must be meaningful; that is, discussions may not

mislead offerors and must identify deficiencies and significant weaknesses in each 

offeror’s proposal that could reasonably be addressed in a manner to materially 

enhance the offeror’s potential for receiving award. There is no requirement, 

however, that discussions be all encompassing or extremely specific in describing 

the extent of the agency’s concerns. PAI Corp., B-298349, Aug. 18, 2006, 2006 CPD 

¶ 124 at 8. 

The record demonstrates that the agency, in conducting discussions with the 

protester, forwarded a detailed list of discussion questions to IVI, and answered a 

number of questions from IVI regarding the discussion questions. Contrary to the 

protester’s assertion, we find based upon our review of the record that the agency’s 

discussions were meaningful. 

For example, IVI argues that the agency “failed to conduct meaningful discussions 

regarding software engineering.” Protester’s Comments at 21. In this regard, the 

protester first points that the agency’s initial technical evaluation noted as a 

 3

 Our review of the record indicates no support for IVI’s contention that the agency 

did not account for its FPR responses to the weaknesses pointed out to IVI with

regard to this criterion. 

Page 10 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
weakness under the technical approach criterion to the technical factor that

[t]he Software Engineering section of this proposal is not discussed in

detail. This could lead to major deficiencies in the design, 

implementation, and testing of the suggested software development 

tasks. 

AR, Tab 3, Initial Technical Evaluation, at 26. The protester next points out that the 

relevant discussion question it received was as follows: 

The software section of the proposal is not discussed in detail. This

could lead to major deficiencies in the design, implementation, and 

testing of the offeror’s proposed changes in software. 

AR, Tab 5, IVI Discussion Questions, at 5. The protester argues that “[s]oftware 

engineering is a different concern than software in general,” and that because of the 

discussion question IVI received from the agency, “IVI was not informed of the 

potential significant weakness in its software engineer ng.” Protester’s Comments 

at 21. 

i

The agency explains that the reference in the initial evaluation to “software 

engineering” was a simple error, given that the neither the RFP nor IVI’s proposal 

contained “software engineering” sections, but rather, both included sections

addressing software maintenance and security. Agency Supp. Report at 10; RFP 

amend. 6, at 5-6. The agency explains that the contracting officer, in preparing IVI’s 

discussion questions, deleted the discussion question’s reference to “software 

engineering” in order to correct this error, and that IVI was in fact properly informed 

during discussions of the agency’s perceived weaknesses in the software section of 

IVI’s proposal. Agency Supp. Report at 10. 

Although IVI continues to complain “that the agency misled IVI from addressing the 

evaluators’ actual concern: software engineering,” and that because of this, the 

“evaluators may have downgraded IVI for failing to answer a question that was not 

asked,” see Protester’s Supp. Comments at 12, the protester does not explain, and we 

cannot see, how this could possibly be the case, given that neither the RFP nor IVI’s

proposal included a “software engineering” section, and given that there is no 

evidence in the agency’s evaluation of FPRs that IVI’s FPR was downgraded for 

failing to address “software engineering.” 

As another example, the protester argues that the agency “failed to conduct

meaningful discussions regarding the biweekly literature surveillance memoranda.” 

Protester’s Comments at 4; Protester’s Supp. Comments at 13. The record reflects

that the agency noted as a “strength” in IVI’s proposal that it provided “a clear 

discussion of how the biweekly literature reports will be organized,” and that the 

“[o]rganization of [the biweekly literature reports appears to be relevant to the aims 

Page 11 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
of the . . . staff.” AR, Tab 3, Initial Evaluation, at 25. The agency also commented 

while noting the various weaknesses in IVI’s initial proposal that “[b]iweekly 

literature surveillance memos would be helpful in judging the potential quality of the 

data output.” Id. at 26.

In response to the protester’s complaint that it “was not informed during discussions

that the agency found IVI’s proposed biweekly literature surveillance memoranda 

problematic,” Protester’s Supp. Comments at 13, the agency explains that it did not

raise this evaluated weakness with IVI during discussions given its overall view that 

“IVI’s proposal with respect to biweekly literature surveillance reports was at least

as much a strength as it was a weakness.” Agency Supp. Report at 13. The agency 

concludes that the concern expressed in its initial evaluation regarding IVI’s 

biweekly literature surveillance memoranda was not significant, and that under the 

circumstances, did not have to be raised with IVI during discussions. Id. We agree. 

As stated previously, the record reflects that the agency had extensive discussions 

with IVI regarding its proposal, and that the agency’s concerns regarding this aspect

of IVI’s proposal were insignificant given the other evaluated weaknesses in IVI’s

proposal, as well as the fact that overall this aspect of IVI’s proposal was found to

constitute a strength. Additionally, IVI has not pointed to, and we cannot find, any 

indication in the evaluation of IVI’s FPR, or source selection documents, that this 

aspect of IVI’s proposal was considered a weakness or had any effect on either IVI’s

overall rating or the source selection. In light of this, and the fact that agency’s are 

not required to identify other than deficiencies and significant weaknesses in each 

offeror’s proposal, or to conduct discussions that are all encompassing, we cannot

find the agency’s conduct here to be objectionable. See PAI Corp., supra. 

The protester also complains that the agency failed to provide it with meaningful 

discussions regarding a weakness in IVI’s proposal as evaluated under the scientific 

and professional personnel criterion to the technical factor regarding IVI’s proposed 

Principal Investigator. In this regard, the protester notes that in addition to finding 

that the Principal Investigator lacked “formal training in the HIV field,” the 

evaluators commented that because of this “[t]he offeror should strongly consider 

hiring a high-level staff member with infectious disease experience to work on the 

HIV and OI aspects of this contract.” AR, Tab 3, Initial Evaluation, at 23. IVI argues 

that the agency failed to provide meaningful discussions here because the agency, 

while informing IVI of its concerns regarding IVI’s proposed Principal Investigator’s

lack of training, did not specifically advise IVI that it could hire another staff member 

to address the evaluated weaknesses regarding IVI’s proposed Principal Investigator. 

This argument is without merit. Although as a general matter offerors must be 

advised during discussions of deficiencies and significant weaknesses in their 

proposals, there is no requirement that an agency advise an offeror during 

discussions of strategies or solutions that may address an evaluated weakness, such 

as the hiring of a staff member to compensate for another staff member’s evaluated 

Page 12 B-299361.2; B-299361.3 
lack of requisite experience. See ITT Fed. Sys. Int’l Corp., B-285176.4, B-285176.5, 

Jan. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 45 at 7 (agency is not obligated to spoon-feed offerors 

during discussions). 

In sum, the record reflects that the agency conducted extensive and meaningful 

discussions with IVI during which that firm was informed of the evaluated 

deficiencies and weaknesses in its proposal that could have been addressed by IVI to

enhance its chance for award. 

The protester has raised numerous other arguments during the course of this protest,

each of which was reviewed by our Office and found to be procedurally deficient or 

insignificant given the record as a whole. For example, IVI argues that the agency 

failed to properly implement the proposed corrective action that led to the dismissal 

of IVI’s initial protest to our Office that challenged the terms of the solicitation. IVI’s 

contention here is based upon IVI’s view that the solicitation remained inadequate in 

that it did not include certain information IVI felt was necessary to prepare its 

proposal. This argument, which is at best a variation of IVI’s other arguments

regarding its view that certain aspects of the solicitation were inadequate, 

constitutes a challenge to the terms of the solicitation that should have been 

protested prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals in order to be timely. 

4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1). 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 13 B-299361.2; B-299361.3