United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

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-401448.5; B-401448.6 

Date: May 13, 2010 

Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith Pachter 

McWhorter PLC, for the protester. 

Jennifer S. Zucker, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for 

Biotechnical Services, Incorporated, the intervenor. 

Michael I. Goulding, Esq., and Jonathan A. Baker, Esq., Department of Health and 

Human Services, for the agency. 

Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST 

Agency’s determination that the protester’s proposal was unacceptable was 

reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme. 

DECISION 

Information Ventures, Inc. (IVI) of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, protests the award of 

a contract to Biotechnical Services, Incorporated (BSI) of North Little Rock, 

Arkansas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIHES2008050, issued by the 

Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National 

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, for technical report preparation services. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP, issued on July 15, 2008 as a small business set-aside, contemplated the 

award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a 5-year base period with five 1-year 

options for technical report preparation services. The contractor was to serve as a 

resource for the preparation of two types of technical reports describing National 

Toxicology Program (NTP) studies of the toxicology and carcinogenicity of selected 

chemicals. The difference between the two types of peer-reviewed, book-style 
reports was primarily in length and the type of review process the reports would 

undergo. The long reports are book-length monographs that provide an overview of 

the literature on the biological effects of a particular substance or set of chemicals, 

and the full details of long-term NTP studies of the effects of the test chemical in 

rodents. The short reports were to describe a variety of toxicity studies in rodents. 

RFP § B, at 4. 

Award under the RFP was to be made on a best-value basis considering the following 

evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: technical, cost, and past 

performance. Under the technical factor, the RFP listed the following five pointweighted subfactors: (1) soundness of technical approach–30 points, (2) experience 

and ability of proposed staff–30 points, (3) facilities and equipment–20 points, 

(4) project management–15 points, and (5) editorial quality of the proposal–5 points. 

All evaluation factors, other than cost, were significantly more important than cost. 

RFP § M, at 61-63. 

Eight proposals, including those of IVI and BSI (the incumbent contractor), were 

submitted in response to the RFP by August 18. A special emphasis panel (SEP), 

composed of nine voting non-government members (with some non-voting 

government members), evaluated the proposals and assigned each a numerical and 

an adjectival rating.1

 The proposals of IVI, BSI, and another offeror were included in 

the competitive range and received the following scores and ratings: 

Score Adjectival Rating Cost 

BSI 95.56 Acceptable $15,607,918 

IVI 90.44 Acceptable $17,273,618 

Third Offeror 85.89 Acceptable $18,024,062 

 

Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Evaluation Report, Dec. 10, 2009, at 657-58. 

On February 6, 2009, the agency conducted detailed discussions with the offerors 

whose proposals were found to be in the competitive range. During these 

discussions, various concerns were raised regarding IVI’s proposal. For example, 

the agency was concerned that most of the proposed staff would be new hires; that 

IVI’s proposed team had not worked together previously, which was a concern on a 

project of this size; that IVI’s offices and staff were located in different areas; and 

that its cost proposal was high compared to the government estimate. See Agency 

Discussions Letter to IVI (Feb. 6, 2009). Final proposal revisions, including 

responses to the discussions, were received by February 19. 

Final proposal revisions were evaluated by a different evaluation panel than the 

panel that evaluated the initial proposals; in contrast to the first panel, this three-

 

1

 The proposals were rated either acceptable or unacceptable. 

Page 2 B-401448.5, B-401448.6 
member source selection panel (SSP) was staffed by government employees. The 

SSP did not assign scores or ratings to the final proposal revisions, but evaluated 

each proposal against the stated evaluation factors and provided detailed narratives 

relating to each of the proposals. 

Based on its review of IVI’s proposal and revisions, the SSP found that IVI was not 

“considered capable of performing the work.” AR, Tab 8, Source Selection 

Document, March 9, 2009, at 769. For example, the SSP noted that, even though IVI’s 

final proposal replaced portions of the proposed staff and offered to perform most of 

the work in its Philadelphia office, fundamental questions remained about the overall 

coordination of IVI’s operations. These questions centered on the acquisition, 

coordination, and continuity of the proposed staff, and the overall management and 

coordination of a group that had not worked together. Further, the SSP found that 

IVI’s proposal did not demonstrate that IVI understood the process of creating 

technical reports; that is, IVI’s proposal did not show that it understood that the 

process required starting with a large number of discrete, independent components 

and assembling them into a consistent, coherent report. 

The SSP also found that IVI’s proposal relied on subcontractors to provide qualified 

staff “as needed.” This raised a concern about who would be managing the selection 

and evaluation of the subcontractor staff members, and about communications 

between the staff members and NTP program members. In the agency’s view, clear 

lines of communication would increase report consistency, increase the sharing and 

exchange of materials, and improve the internal review process for these reports.2 

AR, Tab 8, SSP Source Selection Review Summary, at 774-76. 

On the other hand, the SSP found that BSI’s proposal, as originally submitted, was 

clear, well organized, and demonstrated BSI’s full understanding of the details of the 

project, based on its 19 years as the incumbent. BSI’s only proposed reliance on a 

subcontractor was for the printing of a small number of hard copies of the final 

version of each report. With regard to staffing contingencies, BSI’s proposal 

described internal cross-training of staff members and also mentioned current BSI 

employees available who had prior successful experience on the NTP contract. Id.

at 774. 

Based on the SSP’s technical evaluation as well as the agency’s cost realism analysis 

and past performance evaluation, the source selection official concluded that “only 

BSI . . . possessed the knowledge, staff, understanding of the project, and capability 

to adequately perform the requirements of this contract.” Further, the SSP found 

that, “although . . . the rank order of the technical merit of the offers did not change 

as a result of [the SSP’s] review of the [final proposal revisions], . . . neither IVI nor 

 

2

 The SSP documented similar concerns regarding the third competitive range 

proposal. 

Page 3 B-401448.5, B-401448.6 
[the third offeror] were considered capable of performing the work.” See AR, Tab 8, 

Source Selection Document, Mar. 9, 2009, at 769. On April 2, the source selection 

official selected BSI for award. Id. at 5. 

After receiving a debriefing on May 19, IVI protested to our Office. On June 15, the 

agency decided to take corrective action, including convening a “new technical 

evaluation panel,” and reevaluating the “competitive range proposals, as revised.” 

Agency Letter to GAO (June 15, 2009). We therefore dismissed the protest. 

On October 21, the agency convened a new four-member technical evaluation panel 

(TEP), staffed by government employees. The record indicates that one member of 

the prior SSP, and a non-voting government employee member of the SEP, were 

members of the new TEP. AR at 11-12. The TEP evaluated the competitive range 

proposals as follows: 

Score Adjectival Rating Cost 

BSI 95.6 Acceptable $15,729,559 

IVI 62.0 Unacceptable $14,178,243 

Third Offeror 52.8 Unacceptable $17,416,272 

AR, Tab 12, Corrective Action Source Selection Decision, Jan. 15, 2010, at 2, 5. 

The TEP found that BSI’s proposal showed that it possessed the knowledge, staff, 

understanding of the project, and capability to perform the requirements of the 

contract. However, the other two proposals were downgraded, received lower point 

scores, and determined to be unacceptable by the TEP. With regard to IVI’s 

proposal, the TEP concluded: 

The reviewers unanimously rated this proposal as unacceptable. In 

summary, both the company and the individual proposed staff lacked 

sufficient relevant experience in high-volume technical document 

creation. Some of the key technical staff had little experience in 

technical writing, and the qualifications and identities of other 

supplemental staff were unknown and were to be determined at a 

future date not by IVI but by a subcontractor. Such an arrangement 

raised serious concerns about the overall coordination of the project, 

the interactions between NTP authors and the disparate groups 

involved in the report writing, and overall consistency of the products--

both the internal consistency of the contents of individual reports and 

overall consistency of the report series. In general this proposal 

exhibited a lack of appreciation of the magnitude and complexity of 

the project and of the need for consistent, sustained effort by a 

coordinated team. These concerns raised serious doubts about the 

ability of this offeror to establish and sustain the level of productivity 

required for this project. 

Page 4 B-401448.5, B-401448.6 
AR, Tab 10, TEP Consensus Evaluation Report, Jan. 13, 2010, at 22. 

The TEP found that neither IVI’s, nor the third offeror’s, proposal conveyed a 

sufficient understanding of the requirement or the ability to assemble and coordinate 

an appropriate staff to sustain the level of document generation required by the 

government. The TEP also found that the weaknesses in these two proposals were 

material and went to the heart of the technical and management approaches. The 

TEP therefore found that neither offeror would be able to make its proposal 

competitive without major revisions. AR, Tab 12, Corrective Action Source Selection 

Decision, Jan. 15, 2010, at 4-5. Consequently, on January 15, 2010, the proposals of 

IVI and the third offeror were excluded from the competitive range and the source 

selection official affirmed the award to BSI. After a debriefing, this protest followed. 

DISCUSSION 

IVI first argues that the agency’s use of members from the prior evaluation panels on 

the TEP was inconsistent with its promised corrective action, and was evidence that 

the reevaluation was not neutral and independent, but was “flawed” and “tainted.” 

Protest Comments at 3. In this regard, IVI points to the TEP’s assignment of 

62 points and an unacceptable rating to IVI’s proposal, as compared to the prior 

panel’s assignment of 90.44 points and an acceptable rating. IVI maintains that the 

initial SEP score and rating is evidence that its proposal was not unacceptable, and 

contends that the stark difference in its own scores, and the fact that BSI’s score 

remained virtually unchanged, can only be explained by a lack of impartiality on the 

part of, and improper influence by, the evaluators who were involved in the prior 

evaluation and were aware of IVI’s earlier protest. IVI also argues that these 

evaluators were otherwise biased in favor of the incumbent, BSI. 

The record here, however, does not support IVI’s conjectures and there is no 

suggestion of bias or bad faith in the reevaluation. To the extent that IVI complains 

about members from the prior SSP sitting on the new evaluation panel, the selection 

of individuals to serve as proposal evaluators is a matter within the discretion of the 

agency; accordingly, we will not review allegations concerning the composition of 

evaluation panels absent a showing of possible fraud, conflict of interest, or actual 

bias on the part of evaluation officials.3

 Glatz Aeronautical Corp., B-293968.2, 

Aug. 10, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 160 at 3 n.1. 

 

3

 The agency states that bias on the part of the members of the prior panel was not a 

consideration in deciding to impanel a new evaluation panel, since this was not an 

allegation in the prior protest. Instead, use of a new panel was voluntarily 

undertaken by the agency to afford the contracting officer the benefit of a fresh 

review. The agency reports that staffing constraints did not allow the TEP to be 

composed solely of members who had not been previously involved in evaluating the 

proposals. AR at 12. 

Page 5 B-401448.5, B-401448.6 
We also do not believe that the wide difference in the point scores received by IVI’s 

proposal in the initial and final evaluations, as compared to the virtually identical 

points received by BSI’s proposal, demonstrate that the evaluation of these 

proposals was unreasonable. In fact, from our review of the record, the high score 

initially awarded IVI’s proposal by the SEP seems inexplicable, given the concerns 

raised during discussions.4

 In sum, IVI’s protest about the composition of the TEP 

and the difference in point scores provides no basis to find its evaluation 

unreasonable. 

IVI also asserts that its proposal was improperly evaluated under each one of the 

technical evaluation factors and subfactors, and that its proposal could not be 

reasonably evaluated as unacceptable. In reviewing protests of alleged improper 

evaluations and source selections, our Office examines the record to determine 

whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated 

evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws. See Abt Assocs., Inc., 

B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. While we address in this decision 

only some of IVI’s challenges to its evaluation, we have considered all of them and 

conclude that none provide a basis for finding unreasonable the agency’s 

determination that IVI’s proposal was unacceptable.5

 

For example, IVI complained about various aspects of the TEP’s evaluation and 

scoring of its proposal under the soundness of technical approach factor, where IVI’s 

proposal received a total of 18.7 of a possible 30 points. While the TEP recognized a 

strength in IVI’s proposal that it had researched the NTP technical report process 

and was conversant with the goals, the TEP found that the proposal lacked a 

discussion of the potential problems that could be encountered. The more 

 

4

 Some of these concerns with IVI’s proposal continued through its final proposal 

revision and were recognized as serious weaknesses by both the SSP and TEP. 

5

IVI also contends that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions since 

the weaknesses/defects that led to its starkly reduced score were not brought to its 

attention during discussions. However, because IVI did not raise this allegation until 

filing its comments on the agency’s report on the protest, we find this protest 

allegation to be untimely filed. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests not 

involving solicitation improprieties are required to be filed not later than 10 days 

after the basis of protest is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier. 

4 C.F.R § 21.2 (a)(2) (2010). While IVI argues that it was not aware of its individual 

factor and subfactor scores until March 10, when it received the agency report on the 

protest, IVI was told in its January 29 debriefing that its point score had been 

dramatically lowered to 62 points, and was told the reasons why its proposal was 

considered deficient. IVI was also aware at that time that it had not received 

discussions on these matters. Therefore, IVI’s attempt to raise a challenge to the 

adequacy of discussions at this late juncture is untimely and will not be considered. 

Page 6 B-401448.5, B-401448.6 
significant concerns were that IVI may not have fully grasped the magnitude of the 

project; that the number of technical writers proposed appeared inadequate to 

handle the eight book length drafts of technical reports; that none of the technical 

writers had worked together with each other as a team; and that the organization 

plan lacked an understanding of the need for continuity and consistency in the 

production of several reports, as reflected in the proposal’s reliance on temporary 

staff from subcontractors to fill in at different sites as needed. AR, Tab 10, TEP 

Consensus Summary Report, at 16-17. 

IVI contends, among other things, that its proposed staffing level and its staff’s lack 

of previous experience in working together should not have been considered under 

the soundness of technical approach factor, because the solicitation’s explanation of 

this factor did not mention that the agency would consider staffing levels or previous 

experience in working together as a team. We disagree. Although agencies are 

required to identify in a solicitation all major evaluation factors, they are not 

required to identify all areas of each factor that might be taken into account in an 

evaluation, provided that the unidentified areas are reasonably related to or 

encompassed by the stated factors. See Digital Solutions Inc., B-402067, Jan. 12, 

2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 26 at 10. We think the level of staffing, and the fact that IVI’s 

technical writers had not previously worked together as a team, were reasonably 

related to, and properly could be considered under, the soundness of technical 

approach evaluation factor, particularly given that there are no other evaluation 

factors that specifically state that they encompass these matters. 

IVI’s other complaints about the evaluation of its proposal under the soundness of 

technical approach factor provide no basis for our Office to find that the agency’s 

concerns were not reasonably based. For example, IVI contends that its proposal 

was improperly downgraded because of the agency’s concerns about the use of 

subcontractors “as needed” to provide additional technical writers because its 

proposal explained the limited circumstances where it planned to rely on 

subcontractors. One of the circumstances, however, was where “the project 

workload exceeds the capacity of IVI’s technical writing staff.” AR, Tab 15, IVI Final 

Proposal Revision, at 898. IVI’s proposal does not adequately explain why it 

anticipates such a problem, or the likelihood that it would occur, and we believe that 

the agency could reasonably be concerned about this issue, given the relatively 

junior status of some of the technical writers proposed by IVI.6 

 

6

 IVI also claims that the agency inconsistently evaluated the proposals. For 

example, IVI states that it has analyzed the technical reports prepared by BSI under 

its contract and found that a variety of BSI employees, rather than a unified team, 

served as technical writers on these reports. This complaint, however, does not 

show that the evaluation of the proposals themselves was inconsistent. IVI’s other 

arguments based on alleged instances of inconsistent evaluation of the proposals are 

similarly meritless. 

Page 7 B-401448.5, B-401448.6 
On this front, IVI also complains about the agency’s conclusion that certain of its 

staff had limited experience. This criticism was raised under the agency’s evaluation 

of the experience and ability of proposed staff factor, worth 30 points. IVI’s proposal 

received a score of 18 points under this factor. The most heavily-weighted subfactor 

under this factor (worth 15 points) was to consider “training, experience, availability 

and technical accomplishments of [the] proposed Senior Science Writer, and the 

Technical Writers, the offeror shall provide resumes that document in detail their 

previous experience.” RFP § M at 62. IVI’s proposal received 8.7 points under this 

subfactor. While the TEP noted that IVI’s proposed writing staff had strengths in 

certain areas, some of the proposed technical writers were post-doctoral fellows in 

the previous year and had limited professional or publication experience. Further, 

the TEP found a major weakness in IVI’s reliance on other technical writers to be 

identified and selected later by its subcontractors. The TEP found that this approach 

presented a major organizational difficulty and that it was impossible to know the 

identity of the staffers to be provided on a temporary basis. The TEP also found that 

the overall uncertainty of the identity of the staff, coupled with IVI’s intent to allow 

its subcontractor, rather than IVI’s management, to select the staff, was a major 

defect. AR, Tab 10, TEP Consensus Summary Report, at 18. 

IVI responds to its evaluation by arguing, among other things, that the successful 

completion of a doctoral program is demonstrable evidence of the ability to prepare 

and write a book-length technical report, and that quantification of the professional 

experience should not have been evaluated under this subfactor. However, we think 

that the agency’s assessments were reasonable, and consistent with the evaluation 

criteria. In particular, we see nothing improper about the agency’s decision to 

consider the relative quality and quantity of the experience of IVI’s proposed 

technical writers under this subfactor. 

IVI also argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to find a major defect under 

this subfactor based on a belief that writers would be identified and selected by its 

subcontractors because IVI’s proposal specifically stated 

[DELETED] 

AR, Tab 3, IVI Initial Proposal, at 228. This statement appears in IVI’s initial 

proposal. IVI’s final proposal revision states, 

[DELETED] 

AR, Tab 16, IVI Final Proposal Revision, at 931. Thus, we find that the TEP had a 

reasonable basis for its concern about how subcontractor technical writers would be 

selected for this contract. 

As illustrated by the foregoing examples, and based on our review of the record, IVI 

has not shown the agency’s conclusion that IVI’s proposal was unacceptable was 

Page 8 B-401448.5, B-401448.6 
Page 9 B-401448.5, B-401448.6 

unreasonable, or inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme. Instead, we 

find that the agency had a reasonable basis for its evaluation of IVI’s proposal, its 

elimination of IVI’s proposal from further consideration, and its affirmation of the 

award to BSI. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel