Computer Information Specialist Essay

Computer Information Specialist, Inc. (CIS) filed a take issue of the divide of a shorten to Open Technology Group, Inc. (OTG). CIS responded to a request for proposals (RFP) No. NLM-030101/SAN by the incision of Health and Human Services for telecommunications support services at the self-assurances Bethesda, Maryland facility. The solicitation specified a requirements sustain with refractory hourly rates for a base year with four 1-year options. The spot intended to award the contract found on best rank with several non-price criteria as the most heavily weighted factors. Proposals were to include fully-loaded, hardened hourly rates for labor categories. The agency received numerous proposals and open up a competitive flow of four firms after initial evaluation. The range included CIS as well as OTG the eventual awardee. Following the contract award to OTG CIS underwent an agency debrief and subsequently filed a protest insist that both its proposal and the proposal o f OTG were misevaluated.IssuesAgencies are required to evaluate proposals based solely on the evaluation factors identified in the solicitation. Furthermore, according to national Acquisition Regulations, they must adequately document the reasons for their evaluation conclusions (FAR 15.308). GAO recommended to the agency was to, at a minimum reevaluate both 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, General Counsel wrote the recommendation. The protest was sustained. Reasoning (Rationale) GAO concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services misevaluated the proposals of both CIS and OTG, contract awardee. In addition, they found that the agencys misevaluation was prejudicial to CIS, since on that point is a reasonable possibility that, but for the agencys errors, CIS force have been selected for award notwithstanding its higher price.Separat e OpinionsNo take issue opinion was published 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 first selection team consisted of five evaluators. In the case of the proposal by CIS, the initial evaluation criticized the proposal for not offering personnel that met solely of the solicitation minimum personnel experience requirements. CIS revised their proposal to heal 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 if cursory notes were provided to support conclusions. In the second evaluation, most evaluators still provided expressage support. However, the fifth evaluator provided comments.Many of the comments were either inaccurate or held not relation to evaluation criteria. With regard to the OTG proposal, GAO determined that the solicitation failed to meet cardinal of the evaluation criteria and should not have been accepted in the competitive range. It was to a fault recommended that the agency terminate the contract awarded to OTG for the convenience of the government and make award to the firm found to be in line for award. Furthermore CIS was to be reimbursed all costs associated with the protest to include legal fees.