Computer Information Specialist Essay

Computer discipline Specialist, Inc. (CIS) filed a complain of the award of a shrink to Open Technology Group, Inc. (OTG). CIS responded to a request for marriage proposals (RFP) No. NLM-030101/SAN by the plane section of Health and Human function for telecommunications documentation services at the theatricals Bethesda, Maryland facility. The solicitation specified a requirements twinge with fixed periodic rank for a base year with quad 1-year options. The agency intended to award the contract based on best foster with several non-price criteria as the to the highest degree severely weighted factors. Proposals were to include fully-loaded, fixed hourly rates for labor categories. The agency veritable numerous proposals and established a free-enterprise(a) range of quaternary firms after sign military rank. The range included CIS as healthful as OTG the eventual awardee. Following the contract award to OTG CIS underwent an agency debrief and after filed a protest asserting that some(prenominal) its proposal and the proposal of OTG were misevaluated.IssuesAgencies are required to evaluate proposals based solely on the evaluation factors identified in the solicitation. moreover, match to Federal Acquisition Regulations, they must adequately document the reasons for their evaluation conclusions (FAR 15.308). GAO recommended to the agency was to, at a minimal reevaluate both(prenominal) proposals to ascertain if they were evaluated based on the evaluation factors and to determine if adequate rationale were articulated.Decisions (Holdings)Anthony H. Gamboa, everyday Counsel wrote the recommendation. The protest was sustained. Reasoning (Rationale) GAO cerebrate that the plane section of Health and Human Services misevaluated the proposals of both CIS and OTG, contract awardee. In addition, they be that the agencys misevaluation was prejudicial to CIS, since there is a reasonable possibility that, however for the agencys errors, CIS mi ght contrive been selected for award notwithstanding its higher price. stop OpinionsNo dissenting opinion was produce with GAOs decision.AnalysisGAO analyzed the proposals from both CIS and OTG against the RFPs stated evaluation criteria. The Department of Health and Human Services computer address selection team consisted of five justices. In the case of the proposal by CIS, the initial evaluation criticized the proposal for not fling personnel that met all of the solicitation minimum personnel experience requirements. CIS revised their proposal to cure this deficiency. In further evaluation, four of the five evaluators scored this area higher than the initial proposal. However, the fifth evaluator scored the proposal dramatically differently. In the first evaluation, only passing(prenominal) notes were provided to support conclusions. In the second evaluation, most evaluators still provided limited support. However, the fifth evaluator provided comments.Many of the comments w ere either inaccurate or held not relation to evaluation criteria. With cipher to the OTG proposal, GAO determined that the solicitation failed to meet ii of the evaluation criteria and should not have been authorized in the competitive range. It was also recommended that the agency terminate the contract awarded to OTG for the convenience of the authorities and make award to the firm appoint to be in line for award. Furthermore CIS was to be reimbursed all costs associated with the protest to include legal fees.