Computer Information Specialist Essay Example for Free

Computer Information medical specialist EssayComputer Information Specialist, Inc. (CIS) filed a protest of the award of a contract to Open engineering science Group, Inc. (OTG). CIS responded to a request for propositions (RFP) No. NLM-030101/SAN by the Department of Health and Human Services for telecommunications support work at the agencys Bethesda, Maryland facility. The entreaty specified a requirements contract with unconquerable periodical rates for a base year with four 1-year options. The agency intended to award the contract found on best value with several non-price criteria as the most heavily weighted factors. Proposals were to include fully-loaded, fixed hourly rates for labor categories. The agency received numerous proposals and established a competitive compass of four firms after initial military rating. The range included CIS as well as OTG the eventual awardee. spare-time activity the contract award to OTG CIS underwent an agency debrief and subsequ ently 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. Furthermore, according 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 minimum reevaluate both proposals to ascertain if they were evaluated based on the evaluation factors and to determine if adequate precept 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 there is a reasonable hap that, but for the agencys errors, CIS might hav e been selected for award notwithstanding its higher price.Separate OpinionsNo dissenting 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 source selection team consisted of pentad evaluators. In the carapace of the proposal by CIS, the initial evaluation criticized the proposal for not offering 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, and cursory notes were provided to support conclusions. In the second evaluation, most evaluators still provided limited support. However, the fifth evaluator provided comments. galore(postnominal) 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 invite two of the evaluation criteria and should not have been accepted in the competitive range. It was also recommended that the agency burn the contract awarded to OTG for the convenience of the government and make award to the firm found to be in decline for award. Furthermore CIS was to be reimbursed all costs associated with the protest to include legal fees.