Protest alleging disparate treatment is sustained. The agency had assigned the protester a weakness for failing to address a subtask in the solicitation. The awardee had failed to address the same subtask but had not received a weakness. GAO found that the agency had disparately evaluated proposals under the subtask. Because the protester’s and awardee’s technical ratings and prices were so close, GAO assumed the evaluation error could have impacted the best value determination. The protester, therefore, had been prejudiced by the disparate treatment.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a solicitation seeking consultation, research, and development services in support of the agency’s work to respond to influenza epidemics. Battelle Memorial Institute and CSRA, LLC submitted proposals. Battelle had a slightly higher numerical score than CSRA under the solicitation’s non-price factors, but CDC awarded the contract to CSRA based on its slightly lower price. Battelle protested.
Battelle alleged CDC disparately evaluated proposals. Task 2.o of the solicitation required the successful offeror to conduct laboratory studies assessing immune response to influenza vaccination and develop models to test vaccines. This task was broken into several subtasks, one of which required the offerors to investigate the role of CD8+ T-cells in influenza infection. CDC assigned Battelle a weakness for not describing its approach to investigating CD8+ T-cells. Battelle alleged that CSRA should have received a similar weakness because it also failed to discuss CD8 T-cells.
CDC contended that it had assigned CSRA two weaknesses under Task 2.o, and that these weaknesses encompassed the company’s failure to address CD8+ T-cells. But GAO found that CDC’s assertion were not supported by the record. The two weaknesses CSRA received concerned the methodology of CSRA’s investigation techniques. The weakness Battelle received did not concern investigation methodology; instead, it specifically concerned a failure to address CD8+ T-cells. Battelle’s and CSRA’s proposals were indistinguishable in regard to their failure to address CD8+ T-cells, but only Battelle’s proposal received a weakness. GAO concluded CDC disparately evaluated the offerors.
GAO also found that Battelle had been prejudiced by this error. Battelle’s and CSRA’s proposals were separated by a two percent price difference, and the CDC considered their proposals technically equivalent. Given the small differences between the proposals, GAO could not say what impact one evaluation error would have had on the best value determination. In such circumstances, GAO resolves any doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.
Battelle raised several protest grounds, but GAO found them groundless. For instance. Battelle challenged a weakness it had received for not including a discussion of “ferret pathogenesis and transmission of novel influenza viruses.” Battelle claimed it discussed this issue in its proposal, but CDC ignored it. GAO found that the portions of Battelle’s proposal it alleged were ignored discussed different tasks rather than the task for which the weakness was assessed.
Battelle objected to a weakness it received under the Management Approach factor for not detailing a plan to mitigate personnel conflicts. GAO found that while Battelle had submitted personnel conflict plan, the plan lacked detail. Battelle’s objections were simply disagreement with CDC’s conclusions.
Battelle complained that CDC allowed CSRA’s proposal to exceed the solicitation’s page limitations. The solicitation stated that proposals could not exceed 30 pages. CSRA had submitted 110 pages of resumes. GAO, however, noted that the solicitation explicitly excluded resumes from the page limit.
Finally, Battelle complained about CDC’s methodology for assigning point scores, arguing that the evaluation record did not explain how strengths and weaknesses were translated into point scores. GAO found that while the record did not explicitly set forth the relationship between strengths/weaknesses and points, it did include detailed narratives explaining the qualitative nature of the strengths and weaknesses assessed to each proposal. Based on this, GAO concluded that evaluators had reasonably translated their assessments into point scores.
Battelle is represented by Marques O. Peterson, Meghan D. Doherty, Robert C. Starling, and J. Matthew Carter of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The intervenor, CSRA, is represented by Michael F. Mason, Christine A. Reynolds, Adilene Rosales, Stacy M. Hadeka, and Sarah E. Godwin of Hogan Lovells. The agency is represented by Elise Harris, Corey Thompson, and Scott C. Briles of the Department of Health and Human Services. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
