United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Knome Inc. 

File: B-407619

Date: January 17, 2013

James Therrien for the protester.

Bridget E. Grant, Esq., Dennis Foley, Esq., and Carrie Parrish, Esq., Department of 

Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

Gary R. Allen, Esq., Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of 

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

DIGEST

Protester’s challenge to agency’s evaluation of its proposal is denied where record 

shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with terms of solicitation.

DECISION

Knome Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to 

Personalis, Inc., of Palo Alto, California, under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. VA-240-12-R-0154, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for 

whole human genome sequencing services in support of the VA’s Genomics 

Medicine Program. The protester challenges the evaluation of its technical 

proposal.

We deny the protest.1

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued under the commercial acquisition procedures of Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, provided for the award of one or more 

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for whole human genome sequencing 

 

1 Because a protective order was not issued in connection with the protest, our 

decision is necessarily general.
Page 2 B-407619 

services supporting the VA’s Genomics Medicine Program.2 Offerors were 

informed that award or awards would be made on a best value basis, considering 

the following factors: price, technical, past performance, and socio-economic 

status. RFP at 66-67. The technical factor included three subfactors: 

understanding and compliance with requirements; readiness (to begin performance 

immediately following award); and DNA sample security plan.3 Price was 

considered to be significantly more important than all of the non-price factors, 

combined. Id. at 67. Offerors were warned that only proposals that were evaluated 

as acceptable under the technical factor and its subfactors would be considered for 

award.

4

 Id. at 69.

The RFP provided instructions for the preparation of proposals. With respect to the 

technical subfactors, offerors were asked to address in sufficient detail each work 

area and solicitation requirement to demonstrate a clear understanding of the 

statement of work and specific tasks. As relevant here, with respect to the offerors’ 

DNA sample security plan, the RFP required offerors to

outline in their response[s] their planned methods for handling and 

securing of samples, related papers and electronic documents. 

This plan is to be required at the time of submitting a proposal. 

This plan will be approved and finalized prior to contract award.

Id. at 68.

The RFP provided details of the standards that contractors would be held to in 

performance of the requirement. For example, concerning the destruction of 

electronic data, the RFP stated that this requirement must be done in accordance 

with, among other things, VA Handbook 6500.1, Electronic Media Sanitization. Id.

at 7. Similarly, the RFP specified that electronic storage media used on non-VA 

 

2 As part of its Million Veteran Program, a national research program that is the 

cornerstone of the Genomic Medicine Program, the VA is establishing a data base 

containing annotated whole human genome sequences and health data from 

veterans. See RFP, Performance Work Statement, at 21.

3 One of the required tasks in the RFP’s performance work statement was for the 

destruction of unused DNA samples and DNA sequence data. See RFP, 

Performance Work Statement, at 24.

4 The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under the technical factor as 

outstanding, good, acceptable or unacceptable. As relevant here, an unacceptable 

rating reflected a proposal that contained a major error, omission, or deficiency that 

indicated a lack of understanding or an approach that could not be expected to 

meet requirements. RFP at 70.
Page 3 B-407619 

information technology equipment must be sanitized, for example at the completion 

or termination of the contract, in adherence with VA Handbook 6500.1. Id. at 11.

The agency received three proposals in response to the RFP, including those of 

Knome and Personalis, which were evaluated by the agency’s source selection 

evaluation board. The agency included all offers within the competitive range and 

conducted written discussions. Knome was informed that its proposal contained 

weaknesses that needed to be addressed, including that it often restated the 

solicitation requirements without providing details to show its understanding and 

compliance. With respect to the DNA sample security plan subfactor, the agency

specifically indicated to Knome that its proposal lacked information on what 

assurances and processes would be in place for destruction of samples and data, 

and notification to the agency. See Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Knome 

Discussions Letter, at 2-3. 

Knome’s final proposal revision addressed many of the agency’s concerns. 

However, with respect to destruction of samples and data, Knome stated only that it 

would destroy DNA samples by bleaching them. Knome did not define what it 

meant by bleaching or the process it would use to do so. Similarly, concerning data

destruction, Knome simply noted that it would erase data from its subcontractor’s 

systems, without any indication of the processes it would use, or how it would 

assure that data had been erased. See AR, Tab 8, Knome Final Proposal Revision, 

at 5. 

The evaluators found that Knome’s revised response to the DNA sample security 

plan only restated the solicitation requirements without addressing the agency’s 

concerns about Knome’s lack of detail with respect to its destruction processes. 

The evaluators concluded that Knome’s response was unacceptable, and that 

Knome’s proposal was therefore technically unacceptable under the DNA sample 

security plan subfactor. See AR, Tab 9, Final Evaluation Report, at 3. Consistent 

with the terms of the RFP, the agency determined that Knome’s proposal could not 

be considered for award, based on its unacceptable rating for the technical factor. 

The VA selected the proposal submitted by Personalis as reflecting the best value 

to the agency. Knome’s lower-priced proposal ($1.4 million as compared to the 

awardee’s $1.53 million proposal) was rejected as unacceptable. AR, Tab 10, 

Source Selection Decision, at 12-13. Award was made to Personalis, and this 

protest followed a debriefing.5

 

5 The third offeror’s substantially higher-priced proposal was found to be 

unreasonably priced. 
Page 4 B-407619 

DISCUSSION

Knome objects to the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable. With 

respect to its response to the DNA sample security plan subfactor, the protester 

contends that its response was acceptable, stating that it clearly informed the VA 

that it would destroy DNA samples, erase data, and inform the VA.6

 Comments 

at 4. 

The VA acknowledges that Knome informed the agency that it would destroy DNA 

samples and electronic data and would inform the VA, but states that Knome failed 

to address in its proposal or in its response to discussions how this would be 

accomplished. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 6. The agency notes that the 

RFP requires that contractors follow certain destruction procedures to ensure 

compliance with VA Handbook 6500.1. Supp. AR at 2. In its initial proposal, 

Knome merely provided general descriptions of its methods for disposal and 

destruction of data and samples, without any reference to the VA Handbook. Id.

at 3, citing Protester’s Proposal at 17. The agency states that even after 

discussions Knome failed to provide a sufficient description of how data would be 

destroyed, or to address the requirements of VA Handbook 6500.1. 

In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selection 

decisions, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, we will examine the 

record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord 

with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations. 

See Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. It is an 

offeror’s obligation to submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to 

evaluate. United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 75 at 19. 

Furthermore, a protester’s disagreement with the evaluation is not sufficient to 

render it unreasonable. Ben-Mar Enters., Inc., B-295781, Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD 

¶ 68 at 7. 

Here, our review of the record indicates that Knome failed to adequately address 

the agency’s concerns over Knome’s lack of detail, even though it was given the 

opportunity to do so. Knome’s disagreement with the agency’s evaluation does not 

 

6 In supplemental comments filed in response to the agency’s supplemental report, 

Knome argues, for the first time, that the agency’s discussions were misleading. 

Specifically, Knome complains that during discussions it was informed that its 

response to the DNA sample security plan subfactor was a weakness, and that its 

proposal was unacceptable. Supp. Comments at 1. This complaint is untimely. 

Because Knome learned at its debriefing that its proposal was found unacceptable 

under this subfactor, Knome should have raised the challenge to the adequacy of 

discussions in its initial protest. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2012).
Page 5 B-407619 

provide a basis for our Office to find the agency’s evaluation unreasonable, or 

otherwise improper. Ben-Mar Enters., Inc., supra. 

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel