Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Hello,
Here are the readings for the assignment, the book "American Protest Literature" by John Stauffer and Howard Zinn pages 79-84, 92-98, 106-115, 247-255, 266-273, 342-355, 364-374 and "Fences" by August Wilson.
Please let me know it you guys have these book or i need to make copies, scan and email it. And I love the writer by this name "Blitzintheasylum" to writer my paper.
Thank U

Essay Instructions: CASE STUDY INSTRUCTIONS
Provide a 1 page briefing paper about the case content and final decision. At a minimum, the briefing paper should include:
Overview of the case
Discussion of case important points
Your opinion of the GAO's final decision
Summary
Please advise if these instructions are not clear.

Case 1
Matter of: Future Solutions, Inc.
File: B-293194
Date: February 11, 2004
Vanessa Navarro, for the protester.
Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency; Thedlus L. Thompson,
Esq., General Services Administration; John W. Klein, Esq., and Kenneth Dodds, Esq.,
Small Business Administration, for the agencies.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that procurement should have been set aside for small businesses is
denied, where the agency reasonably determined that the items to be procured were
available under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS); agencies need not consider small
business programs when purchasing from the FSS.
2. Protest that agency unreasonably and unfairly evaluated protester’s response to
“sources sought” notice to small business Federal Supply Schedule vendors to
ascertain their capability of meeting the agency’s requirements is denied, where the
protester does not rebut the agency’s reasons for determining that the protester
lacked the requisite capability, but argues that it was treated disparately from other
vendors who were solicited to submit quotations for the services; the protester was
on a footing completely different from the vendors whose quotations were solicited,
and its response did not have to be considered in the same way as the other vendors’
quotations because it was solicited for a different purpose.
3. General Accounting Office will not consider merits of protest that agency
improperly bundled its office supply requirements in violation of the Small Business
Act where the protester has not demonstrated a reasonable possibility that it was
prejudiced by the bundling.
DECISION
Future Solutions, Inc. (FSI) protests the award by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for office supplies to
Page 2 B-293194
Corporate Express, Inc., pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. DC-03-00233.
FSI, a small business concern, argues that the requirements should be set aside for
small business concerns and that it was not given an equitable opportunity to
compete for this requirement. FSI also contends that the consolidation of the
agency’s office supply requirements into the BPA constitutes improper bundling.
We deny the protest.
The RFQ contemplated award of a BPA for the procurement of office supplies, with
an emphasis on environmentally preferable products (EPP)1 and products of
organizations for the blind or other severely handicapped as authorized by the Javits-
Wagner-O’Day Act, 41 U.S.C. § 46-48c (2000). These products will be provided to
approximately 2,000 purchase cardholders, within approximately 70 EPA facilities,
located in the contiguous United States. The vendor selected for award of the BPA
was required to be a current holder of a contract under the General Services
Administration’s (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 75 IIA, Office Supplies
Products and Equipment. The items covered by the RFQ included all general office
supplies offered under Special Item Number 75 200. The base term of the BPA was
1 year, with four 1-year options, and a maximum 15 months of award-term incentive
options.
In January 2003, the EPA obtained and evaluated the quotations and oral
presentations of four large business FSS 75 IIA contractors. On May 22, the agency
issued a “sources sought” notice seeking information on the capability of small
business FSS 75 IIA contractors for consideration for the BPA. Capability
statements were limited to 5 pages, and were to address the BPA’s statement of work
and 10 other specific capabilities. EPA received capability statements from nine
small business FSS contractors, including FSI. Based on her review, the contracting
officer determined that none of the small business respondents would be able to
perform the BPA’s requirements. Although the EPA’s Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) concurred with this determination, the
OSDBU requested that the contracting officer participate in a teleconference with
two of the small business respondents (not including FSI), so that the contracting
officer could obtain additional information that might demonstrate that these small
business FSS vendors could meet the requirements. After the teleconference, the
contracting officer again concluded that no small business FSS contractors could
meet the RFQ requirements. The contracting officer then reevaluated the quotations
1 EPP is defined in Executive Order 13101 as “products or services that have a lesser
or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with
competing products or services that serve the same purpose.”
Page 3 B-293194
from the four large business FSS contractors and awarded the BPA to Corporate
Express, Inc. on October 23.2
FSI argues that the agency’s purchase from the FSS should have been set aside for
small business concerns and that EPA’s failure to do so violates Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) § 19.502-2(b), which generally requires an agency to set aside
acquisitions for small businesses where there is a reasonable expectation of
receiving fair market price offers from at least two responsible small business
concerns.
However, no statute or regulation required the agency to set aside this requirement
for small businesses in lieu of purchasing from FSS vendors. Indeed, FAR
§ 8.404(a)(1) as it read when the solicitation for this BPA was issued, provided in
pertinent part:
Parts 13 [simplified acquisition procedures] and 19 [small business
programs] do not apply to orders placed against [FSS], except for [a
provision not relevant here]. Orders placed against a Multiple Award
Schedule . . . using the procedures in this subpart are considered to be
issued using full and open competition . . . .
(i) Ordering offices need not seek further competition, synopsize the
requirement, make a separate determination of fair and reasonable
pricing, or consider small business programs.3
This provision obviates the need for agencies to apply small business set-aside
procedures, where, as here, they are purchasing from the FSS. Information
Ventures, Inc., B-291952, May 14, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 101 at 2.
FSI also argues that its response to the agency’s “sources sought” notice was not
reasonably evaluated, that the 5-page limit on its response was unreasonable, and
2 On October 20, the Small Business Administration (SBA) requested that the EPA
noncompetitively award the requirement to FSI, a certified 8(a) concern, under
SBA’s 8(a) program. In a letter dated November 4, the contracting officer replied to
the SBA that the requirement had already been awarded and that it was not
otherwise suitable for a noncompetitive 8(a) award.
3 This FAR provision was amended effective October 20, 2003 to specifically
recognize that the requirements of FAR § 19.202-1(e)(1)(iii) pertaining to bundling,
which implemented the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 631(j)(3) (2000), were
applicable to FSS orders under FAR subpart 8.4. For the reasons stated below, we
do not decide whether the bundling requirements implementing the Small Business
Act were applicable to this acquisition.
Page 4 B-293194
that its response was evaluated in a prejudicially disparate manner inasmuch as the
large business vendors were given the opportunity to make oral presentations and
have discussions.
The FSS program provides federal agencies with a simplified process for obtaining
commonly used commercial supplies and services at prices associated with volume
buying. FAR § 8.401(a). Section 259(b)(3) (2000) of title 41 of the United States
Code provides that the procedures established for the GSA’s multiple award
schedule program (that is, the FSS program) satisfy the general requirement in
41 U.S.C. § 253(a)(1) for use of competitive procedures if participation in the
program has been open to all responsible sources, and orders and contracts under
the FSS procedures result in the lowest overall cost alternative to meet the needs of
the government. Use of the FSS in lieu of conducting a full and open competition is
premised on following the FAR Subpart 8.4 procedures to reach a determination
regarding what the agency’s needs are and which FSS vendor meets those needs at
the lowest overall cost. Savantage Financial Servs., Inc., B-292046, B-292046.2,
June 11, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 113 at 6; Delta Int’l, Inc., B-284364.2, May 11, 2000,
2000 CPD ¶ 78 at 4.
Here, FSI was on a footing completely different from the four large businesses
whose quotations were solicited. This was so because EPA determined that the
large businesses had the capability of performing the BPA requirements whereas
EPA had doubts whether any small business could perform these requirements.
Thus, EPA, in accordance with FAR § 8.404(b)(2), conducted a competition among
the four solicited large businesses to determine which one represented the best
value.4 Because the agency solicited at least three qualified vendors, there was no
legal requirement for EPA to issue the “sources sought” notice to the small business
vendors to determine whether any had the capability of satisfying the BPA
requirements. Without endorsing the course that EPA took, we note that the agency
was not considering whether any of the small business responses represented the
best value, but only determining whether any of the small businesses had the
capability that would justify their being solicited for a quotation. Accordingly, we do
not believe that EPA was obligated to consider FSI’s response to the “sources
sought” notice in the same manner that it evaluated the large business vendors’
responses to the RFQ.
Nevertheless, having requested that small businesses respond to the “sources
sought” notice, EPA was required to evaluate the small business responses in a
reasonable manner. Based on our review, we find that the agency did so, and it had
a reasonable basis for determining that FSI did not show that it had the capability of
satisfying the BPA requirements. In this regard, after noting that FSI’s response was
4 We understand the BPA is for orders below the applicable FSS maximum ordering
threshold.
Page 5 B-293194
“difficult to evaluate” because it was not in accordance with the 10 capability areas
listed the “sources sought” notice, EPA found that either FSI failed to address or did
not sufficiently address several of these areas. For example, while FSI’s response to
the “sources sought” notice stated that a recycling program for the toner cartridges
and batteries “will be established,” the agency noted that FSI’s response did not
include any mention of its track record with similar recycling programs or any plans
detailing how its recycling plan would work. In addition, even though FSI stated that
it has thousands of “green” products available for purchase, the agency noted that
FSI did not mention how many of the products available on its on-line ordering
system met the EPA’s EPP criteria. EPA also noted that although FSI touted its
knowledge and environmental capabilities, it “did not have correct information on
EPA’s paper requirements.” EPA also found that FSI’s “on-line system is very far
from [EPA’s] requirements.” Finally, FSI’s response failed to mention a commitment
by the firm to the development and utilization of “green” delivery vehicles and fleet
maintenance programs, a training module, or the firm’s implementation of
Environmental Management Systems plans. Agency Report, Tab 6, Review of Small
Business Submission in Response to Sources Sought, at 2.
Rather than specifically rebutting the agency’s comments, FSI primarily responds
that it was treated disparately from the solicited large business vendors, who were
not subject to the same page limitation and were accorded the opportunity to make
oral presentations and have discussions, and that the noted deficiencies in FSI’s
response were due to the 5-page limitation. However, as indicated above, the agency
did not have to treat FSI in the same manner as it did the vendors that it had solicited
for quotations because of the more limited purpose of the “sources sought” notice to
ascertain if any small business vendors could possibly satisfy the BPA requirements
and given that EPA was not required to issue this notice. Moreover, inasmuch as FSI
does not specifically outline what additional information it would have included in
its response, had it been given additional pages in which to respond, we cannot
conclude that FSI was prejudiced by the page limitation. Based on our review, FSI
has not shown that the agency’s determination that it lacks the capability to perform
the work under the BPA was unreasonable.
FSI finally contends that the agency’s bundling of its office supplies requirements
into the BPA violates provisions of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 631(j)(3),
which requires agencies to avoid unnecessary and unjustified bundling of contract
requirements that preclude small business participation in procurements as prime
contractors.
We will not consider this aspect of FSI’s protest because there is no showing that FSI
was prejudiced by the bundling of the requirements. Competitive prejudice is an
essential element of every viable protest and where no prejudice is evident from the
record, we will not sustain a protest. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996,
96-1 CPD ¶ 54 at 3; Lithos Restoration, Ltd., B 247003.2, Apr. 22, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 379
at 5. Where the record does not demonstrate that, but for the agency’s actions, the
protester would have had a reasonable chance of receiving the award, our Office will
Page 6 B-293194

CASE 2
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
Comptroller General
of the United States
Decision
Matter of: Computer Information Specialist, Inc.
File: B-293049; B-293049.2
Date: January 23, 2004
Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., and David E. Fletcher, Esq., Piper, Rudnick, for the protester.
Mike Colvin, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,
participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that agency misevaluated proposals is sustained where record shows that
agency’s evaluation conclusions with respect to protester’s proposal were either
unrelated to the evaluation criteria or without a factual basis, and agency failed to
note two deficiencies in awardee’s proposal.
DECISION
Computer Information Specialist, Inc. (CIS) protests the award of a contract to Open
Technology Group, Inc. (OTG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NLM-03-
101/SAN, issued by National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
to acquire telecommunications support services at the agency’s Bethesda, Maryland
campus. CIS maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an
unreasonable source selection decision.
We sustain the protest.
The solicitation contemplated the award of a requirements contract with fixed
hourly rates to perform telecommunications support services for a base year, with
four 1-year options. The RFP advised that the agency intended to make award on a
“best value” basis, with several non-price factors, collectively, being significantly
more important than price. RFP at 66. The non-price criteria (and their point values,
out of 100 possible points) were: qualifications and availability of personnel (30
points), past performance (30 points), technical competence (20 points), and
management approach (20 points). RFP at 66-67. For pricing purposes, offerors
were to submit fully-loaded, fixed hourly rates for various labor categories, RFP at
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been
approved for public release.
Page 2 B-293049; B-293049.2
62; evaluated prices were derived by multiplying the proposed hourly rates by
estimated quantities stated in the solicitation. RFP at 51.
The agency received numerous proposals and, after an initial evaluation, established
a competitive range of four firms, including the protester and the awardee. Agency
Report (AR), exh. 6, at 1-3. The agency conducted discussions with the competitive
range offerors and solicited and obtained revised proposals. The final evaluation
results were as follows:
Offeror Technical Score Estimated Price Acceptability
OTG [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]
Offeror A [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]
Offeror B [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]
CIS [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]
AR, exh. 18 at 2. On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency made award to
OTG, the firm submitting what the agency deemed the highest-ranked, lowest-priced
proposal. Following a debriefing, CIS filed this protest in our Office, asserting that
the agency misevaluated both its and the awardee’s proposals.
In reviewing protests against an agency’s evaluation of proposals, we do not
reevaluate the proposals. Rather, we consider only whether the evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes
and regulations. CWIS, LLC, B-287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 119 at 2. On the
basis of the record here, we find the agency’s evaluation conclusions with respect to
both proposals unreasonable.
CIS
The evaluation record is limited, consisting solely of narrative materials prepared by
the evaluators. Of five evaluators, four prepared only cursory narrative comments to
support their scoring of the initial or revised CIS proposals. The comments that
were prepared during the initial evaluation criticized the proposal principally for not
offering personnel that met all of the solicitation’s minimum personnel experience
requirements.1 This was brought to CIS’s attention during discussions, and CIS
revised its proposal in this area. CIS asserts that it cured this deficiency, and that it
therefore was unreasonable for the final evaluation to reflect a downgrading of the
proposal in the area of personnel qualifications and availability.
1 The RFP divided the contract requirements into seven task areas, six of which
included experience requirements, expressed in terms of years of experience, for the
various personnel categories. For example, under task area 1, program manager, the
proposed program manager was required to have at least 5 years of relevant
experience. RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 4.
Page 3 B-293049; B-293049.2
We agree with CIS. In evaluating the revised CIS proposal, four of the five evaluators
again prepared only cursory narrative materials. In terms of scoring, three of these
four evaluators raised CIS’s score by [deleted] points; the agency’s final consensus
technical evaluation report states that two of the three evaluators increased their
scores based on their conclusion that the CIS proposal now met the personnel
experience requirements, and that the third increased his score based on CIS’s
providing “additional information” in its revised proposal. AR, exh. 7, at 5-6. Among
these four evaluators, two assigned a final overall technical score of [deleted] points
and two assigned a score of [deleted] points. Id. at 7.
The fifth evaluator scored CIS’s revised proposal dramatically differently, reducing
CIS’s score from [deleted] total points initially to [deleted] points on reevaluation.
Unlike the other four evaluators, he prepared extensive narrative materials during
his rescoring of the proposal, AR, exh. 4, at 25-26, and his unedited comments were
ultimately incorporated into the final consensus technical evaluation report, along
with a summary of the other evaluators’ limited comments. AR, exh. 7, at 5. The
agency’s source selection decision document, AR, exh. 18, does not reflect any
critical or independent analysis or evaluation of the proposals by the source
selection official (SSO); instead, it relies entirely upon the numeric scores for
purposes of the agency’s source selection decision. This being the case, the
comments of the fifth evaluator regarding deficiencies in CIS’s proposal represent
the sole support in the evaluation record for the relatively low ranking of CIS’s
revised proposal. This is problematic for the agency because we find that the
conclusions expressed by the fifth evaluator are unreasonable.
The first paragraph of the fifth evaluator’s comments states as follows:
I was dismayed and unfavorably impressed with both the tone and the
substance of the proposer’s response for answers to technical
questions and for additional information. I was shocked with the
pedantry and the profound lack of intellect actually written in the
response. I was disappointed with the visible disregard for manners
and with the actual lack of respect written into and appearing in the
lines of the response. In conscience I cannot recommend that the
government take this proposer or the material presented as a serious
attempt to gain a contract. And I certainly would not wish upon any
government representative the responsibility of confronting or dealing
with any proposer who allows or perhaps promotes such attitudes or
such behavior.
AR, exh.7, at 5.
It is axiomatic that agencies are required to evaluate proposals based solely on the
evaluation factors identified in the solicitation, 41 U.S.C. § 253b(a) (2000), Federal
Acquisition Regulation § 15.305, and that they must adequately document the reasons
for their evaluation conclusions. Future-Tec Mgmt. Sys., Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech
Page 4 B-293049; B-293049.2
Mgmt., Inc., B-283793.5, B-283793.6, Mar. 20, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 59 at 7. The
evaluation factors in the RFP here did not provide for downgrading a proposal based
on the tone of the proposal or the offeror’s manners, attitudes or behavior, and there
is nothing in the minimal evaluation record identifying the criterion applied or
otherwise explaining the basis for the evaluator’s statements. Moreover, having read
the proposal, we are at a loss to understand the basis for the evaluator’s
observations. For example, we are unable to identify any area or aspect of the
proposal that could reasonably be said to demonstrate a “lack of respect” (and, since
the evaluation apparently was based solely on the written submissions, there would
appear to be no other basis for the evaluator’s views). We conclude that this portion
of the fifth evaluator’s comments did not provide a reasonable basis for downgrading
CIS’s proposal.
The comments next observe that, on page three of the revised proposal, CIS offered
[deleted] in task area 2 (task order management) two individuals who do not meet
the RFP’s experience requirements; the comments go on to reference page 18 of the
proposal in support of the observation that these two individuals are being offered in
task area 2. A review of the proposal language, however, establishes that this
observation is simply incorrect. In this regard, page 3 of CIS’s revised proposal--
responding to the agency’s discussion question relating to the experience of its
proposed personnel-- specifically states [deleted]. AR, exh. 15, at 2. These two
individuals are mentioned again on page 18, but only for purposes of describing the
current--as opposed to the proposed--team performing the contract (CIS is the
incumbent for this requirement). We conclude that this aspect of the evaluation
record does not reflect the contents of CIS’s proposal, and thus did not provide a
reasonable basis for downgrading the proposal.
The next portion of the narrative observes that CIS’s past performance is limited in
terms of overall experience, years of experience and number of contracts requiring
similar performance. This observation is made in conclusory terms, with no
supporting detail from the firm’s past performance information. The record shows
that CIS initially cited two prior contracts for purposes of demonstrating its past
performance, one of which was the prior contract for this requirement. During
discussions, the agency asked for additional past performance information, and CIS
provided information about three additional contracts. In each instance, CIS
organized the information by describing the work performed in terms of its
relevance to the seven task areas outlined in the RFP, and included in each of the
listings information relating to each of the seven task areas. CIS’s revised proposal
thus included five past performance references spanning the timeframe 1996 to the
present (approximately 8 years). Since the RFP requested only a list of the last two
contracts performed during the past 3 years, as well as those currently being
performed, RFP at 56-57, CIS appears to have presented information relating to an
adequate number of contracts that appear relevant to the requirement being
solicited. In the absence of some explanation for the fifth evaluator’s conclusory
Page 5 B-293049; B-293049.2
observations indicating why he found otherwise, we find no reasonable basis for the
downgrading of CIS’s proposal in this area.2
The balance of the narrative is devoted to criticism of proposed enhancements
offered by CIS in terms of [deleted]. The narrative criticizes these proposed
enhancements for three principal reasons: the enhancements were not provided
under the firm’s predecessor contract; any efficiencies achieved will benefit the
contractor’s employees, as opposed to government employees; and the proposal
does not state that these enhancements currently exist or explain when they will be
implemented during contract performance. The narrative in this area concludes by
stating: “Therefore, all of that information is no more than a pipe dream, mere vapor
to be disbursed with one’s next breath.” AR, exh. 7, at 5.
Again, these statements are not supported by the record. First, to the extent that the
evaluation criticizes CIS for not providing these enhancements under the
predecessor contract, there is nothing in the record showing that CIS offered the
same enhancements in its previous proposal, or that they were otherwise required
under the earlier contract.
Similarly, nothing in the proposal suggests that these enhancements will not actually
be provided at the commencement of performance. In this regard, the proposed
enhancements are based on CIS’s providing [deleted]. CIS’s proposal addresses the
enhancements as follows:
[deleted]
AR, exh. 13, at 5. Elsewhere, the proposal states:
[deleted]
AR, exh. 13, at 132. As with the areas discussed above, absent some explanation in
the record for the fifth evaluator’s conclusions regarding CIS’s proposed
enhancements, those conclusions are unsupported, and therefore unreasonable.
OTG
CIS asserts that the agency also misevaluated the OTG proposal. According to the
protester, the agency improperly accepted the proposal for award notwithstanding
that it failed to meet two solicitation requirements: the requirement to provide
2 This observation is all the more confusing given that, during the initial proposal
evaluation, the fifth evaluator identified CIS’s past performance as a strength and
stated: “Good experience, especially with NIH.” AR, exh. 4, Initial Evaluation
Worksheet of the Fifth Evaluator.
Page 6 B-293049; B-293049.2
letters of commitment for all of its proposed personnel, and the requirement to
provide a security program plan.
We agree with CIS. Regarding letters of commitment, the RFP provided: “For all
proposed personnel who are not currently members of the offeror’s staff, a letter of
commitment or other evidence of availability is required. A resume does not meet
this requirement.” RFP at 59. OTG proposed 14 individuals not currently employed
by OTG. AR, exh. 8, at 25-52. However, OTG presented only 10 letters of
commitment for these 14 individuals; OTG did not submit letters of commitment for
the other 4 proposed employees.
The agency asserts that it relied on other language in the OTG proposal in
concluding that OTG had satisfied the requirement for evidence of availability.
Specifically, the agency cites the following language: “Finally we have requested and
received letters of intent from our proposed staff (see Attachment C).” AR, exh. 8,
at 2. This representation did not satisfy the requirement. The statement itself is no
more than a self-serving representation, and in relying on it the agency ignored the
fact that Attachment C to the OTG proposal includes only the 10 letters of
commitment referenced above; Attachment C does not include any evidence of the
availability of the other 4 proposed employees. Under these circumstances, we find
that OTG failed to meet this solicitation requirement.3
As noted, CIS also asserts that the OTG proposal did not include an adequate
security program plan. The agency responds that CIS’s assertion in this respect is
simply disagreement with the agency’s evaluation conclusion, asserting that it
reviewed the information in the OTG proposal and, in its discretion, concluded that
it satisfied the security program plan requirement.
The evaluation in this area was unreasonable. The RFP required offerors to submit a
detailed outline (commensurate with the size and complexity of the statement of
work) of its present and proposed information technology systems security program,
demonstrating compliance with the statement of work’s security requirements, as
well as various statutory and regulatory provisions relating to computer security.
RFP at 61. The RFP cautioned offerors as follows:
3 The agency, in a supplemental report, asserts, without supporting evidence, that the
protester failed to document the availability of three of its proposed employees.
However, the record shows that all three are current employees of CIS; there thus
was no requirement to furnish evidence of availability for these individuals. We note
in any event that CIS’s proposal included a signed letter from each of its proposed
employees--including the three employees mentioned by the agency--in which the
employees commit to their continued availability to perform the requirement in the
event that CIS is awarded the contract. AR, exh. 14, attach. 8.
Page 7 B-293049; B-293049.2
Proposals which merely offer to conduct a program in accordance with
the requirements of the Government’s scope of work will not be
eligible for award. The offeror must submit an explanation of the
proposed technical approach in conjunction with the tasks to be
performed in achieving the project objectives.
RFP at 59.
The OTG proposal fails to provide the level of detail required by the solicitation. The
firm’s proposed security program is outlined in a half-page portion of its proposal
that is comprised of four short paragraphs. The first paragraph states that OTG and
its subcontractor understand that their personnel may require access to sensitive
data and systems, and that access to these systems and data may require their
personnel to submit to and pass “various levels of investigation before employment
with the government.” AR, exh. 8, at 64. The next paragraph--which includes the
language the agency states it relied upon in finding the OTG proposal acceptable--
states in its entirety:
The OTG/Verizon Team agrees to comply with the AIS (Automated
Information Systems) security requirements set forth in the statement
of work upon receipt of the government furnished DHHS Automated
Information Systems Security Program (AISSP) Handbook. OTG
further agrees to include compliance to these security guidelines in any
subcontract awarded pursuant to the Prime contract.
Id. The next paragraph of the proposal reiterates that OTG understands that its
employees working on the contract will be subject to various background checks,
and the final paragraph states that OTG agrees to adhere to all established security
training and awareness requirements, that its employees will maintain the integrity,
confidentiality, authenticity, availability and nonrepudiation of data processed,
transmitted or stored on systems in use by NIH, and that it agrees to be monitored to
ensure compliance with all security requirements. Id. (OTG, in its revised proposal,
also stated that it understood that its employees would be required to complete
online NIH computer security awareness training, and also that they will be required
to review and become familiar with any security information supplied by the
government during employee orientation. AR, exh. 10, at 16.)
This language does not set forth a technical approach or an explanation of such an
approach, as expressly required by the RFP; it is entirely lacking in any detail
relating to OTG’s information technology security program, and fails to demonstrate
or describe how OTG plans to comply with the various security requirements
(statutes, regulations and agency guidance) called out in the RFP. Rather, the
proposal does little more than agree to conduct a security program in accordance
with the terms of the statement of work; this is precisely the kind of blanket
statement that the RFP cautioned offerors against. Accordingly, we find that there
was no reasonable basis for the agency’s evaluation of the OTG proposal in this area.
Page 8 B-293049; B-293049.2
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the agency misevaluated the proposals of
both CIS and OTG. We also find that the agency’s misevaluation was prejudicial to
CIS, since there is a reasonable possibility that, but for the agency’s errors, CIS might
have been selected for award notwithstanding its higher price. See McDonald-
Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 54 at 3; see also Statistica v. Christopher,
102 F.3d 1,577, 1,581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We therefore sustain CIS’s protest. 4
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the agency at a minimum reevaluate the proposals of the
competitive range offerors and make a new source selection decision. However, in
light of our finding that the OTG proposal may have been technically unacceptable,
the agency also may elect to reopen discussions and obtain revised proposals.
Should the agency find that another offeror is properly in line for award, we
recommend 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.5 We further recommend that CIS be reimbursed the costs associated with
filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 4 C.F.R.
§ 21.8(d)(1) (2003). CIS’s certified claim for costs, detailing the time spent and the
costs incurred, must be submitted to the agency within 60 days of receiving of our
decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(f)(1).
The protest is sustained.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
4 CIS also alleges that OTG and its subcontractor Verizon have an organizational
conflict of interest because of prior or current contractual relationships that the two
concerns have with the agency. This aspect of the protest is academic in light of our
recommendation (discussed below) that the agency reevaluate proposals and make a
new source selection decision.
5 The agency executed a determination and finding to continue performance of the
OTG contract notwithstanding CIS’s protest on grounds that urgent and compelling
circumstances significantly affecting the interests of the government would not
permit it to suspend performance of the contract. See 31 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) (2000).
Nonetheless, because of the ongoing nature of the requirement, we believe the
agency can implement our recommendation and continue to meet its need for these
services without disruption.

CASE 3
Comptroller General
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
of the United States
Decision
Matter of: Information Ventures, Inc.
File: B-294267
Date: October 8, 2004
Bruce H. Kleinstein for the protester.
James L. Weiner, Esq., Department of Interior, and John W. Klein, Esq., and Laura Mann Eyester, Esq., Small Business Administration., for the agencies.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging agency determination not to set aside procurement for small business concerns is sustained where the decision was based on an unreasonably limited search of the potential small business market, and the contracting officer did not consider the responses of several small businesses to the presolicitation notice in making her determination.
DECISION
Information Ventures, Inc. protests the decision of the Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS), to issue request for proposals (RFP) No. 35164, for assessing various health education methods, on an unrestricted basis. Information Ventures, a small business, contends that the requirement should be set aside for small business concerns.
We sustain the protest.
On May 28, 2004, MMS published a presolicitation notice on the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fedbizopps.gov), in which it announced its intent to procure, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), and on an unrestricted basis pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 13.5, Test Program for Certain Commercial Items, a report that “draw[s] national attention to innovative health education methods and the commonalities of successful programs; and to
provide a resource for those who are developing health education materials for youth ages 9-13.” Presolicitation Notice.1 (As subsequently clarified in the solicitation, issued on June 18, the purpose of the report was to evaluate the current state of health education methods and propose strategies for implementing more innovative health education methods, with a focus on physical activity and healthy eating programs that are integrative, interactive and engaging (e.g., interactive video and computer games, youth-developed messaging, and popular media programming). RFP § II at II-1.)
The presolicitation notice set forth a two-step process in which interested parties were first required to demonstrate their qualifications to perform the required work by submitting a capabilities statement, and then, following review of the capabilities statements, the agency would request those deemed capable and qualified to perform the work to submit a proposal. The presolicitation notice specified June 4 as the deadline for requesting a copy of the solicitation and June 17 as the deadline for submitting capabilities statements.
Twenty business concerns requested a copy of the solicitation by the June 4 deadline, including six small business concerns (two of which included capability statements with their requests). Notwithstanding the expressions of interest on the part of small business concerns, the RFP, issued on June 18 (but with a June 21 “Solicitation Issue Date”), was not set aside for small business concerns, but instead was issued on an unrestricted basis. The solicitation provided that in order to compete, offerors must first demonstrate their qualifications by submitting a capabilities statement by July 7. In addition to the two small business concerns that had already submitted a capabilities statement with their request for a copy of RFP, an additional four firms (three small business concerns and one large business) submitted capabilities statements by the July 7 deadline. The agency found three of the firms (including two small business concerns) to be capable and qualified and requested each to submit a proposal. One of the two small business concerns determined to be capable and qualified was one of the small businesses that had submitted its capability statement with its request for a copy of the solicitation prior to issuance of the solicitation.
On June 30, prior to the due date for receipt of the required capabilities statement, Information Ventures filed this protest with our Office. Information Ventures challenges several aspects of the solicitation, including the fact that the procurement was not set aside for small business concerns. According to the protester, the agency failed to conduct adequate market research before determining not to set aside the procurement.
1 MMS is authorized to contract on behalf of other federal agencies, and is conducting this procurement pursuant to an interagency agreement between MMS and ODPHP.
Page 2 B-294267
In this regard, the contracting officer, in response to the protest, has explained that she determined prior to issuing the presolicitation notice not to set aside the acquisition for small business concerns based on several types of market research. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. Specifically, the record indicates that in searching for potential contractors to perform the requirement here, the contracting personnel reviewed the GSA Advantage online database, which is a database of the products and services available from GSA and Department of Veterans Affairs federal supply schedules, GSA “in stock” programs, and GSA special order programs that may be purchased from supply schedule contractors. Five contractors in the GSA Advantage database, including three small business concerns and two large businesses, were contacted by telephone; according to the agency, all responded that they could not perform the agency’s requirement. In addition, the contracting officer consulted the contracting officer’s technical representative, who suggested contacting Action for Healthy Kids, a volunteer coalition of organizations working to implement programs in schools to eliminate obesity. The coalition, however, indicated that it could not perform the requirement and reportedly was unable to recommend another source.2 As a result of this research, the contracting officer determined that there was not a reasonable expectation that two or more small businesses could perform this requirement. Id.
Information Ventures protests the adequacy of the market research conducted by the agency to determine not to set aside the acquisition, arguing that a proper market survey should have included researching the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, and not just the GSA database, and obtaining the input of the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Interior small business representative, and the ODPHP small business representative.
Contracting officers generally are required to set aside for small businesses all procurements exceeding $100,000 if there is a reasonable expectation of receiving fair market price offers from at least two responsible small business concerns. FAR § 19.502-2(b). Generally, we regard such a determination as a matter of business judgment within the contracting officer’s discretion, and we will not sustain a protest challenging the determination absent a showing that it was unreasonable. McSwain & Assocs. Inc. et al., B-271071 et al., May 20, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 255 at 2. However, an agency must undertake reasonable efforts to ascertain whether it is likely that it will receive offers from at least two small businesses capable of performing the work. Rochester Optical Mfg. Co., B-292247, B-292247.2, Aug. 6, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 138 at 4. Our Office will review a protest of an agency determination not to set aside a
2 Although the agency has stated that the contracting officer also participated in interactive, on-line communication among industry acquisition personnel and customers, Supplemental Agency Report at 4, the record indicates that these communications were e-mails related to the above inquiries.
Page 3 B-294267
procurement to determine whether a contracting officer has undertaken reasonable efforts to ascertain the availability of capable small businesses. Id. In this regard, we have found unreasonable the determination to issue a solicitation on an unrestricted basis where that determination was based upon incomplete information. McSwain & Assocs. Inc. et al., supra. While we have recognized that the use of any particular method of assessing the availability of small businesses is not required, and measures such as prior procurement history, market surveys, and advice from the agency’s small business specialist and technical personnel may all constitute adequate grounds for a contracting officer’s decision not to set aside a procurement, American Imaging Servs., Inc., B-246124.2, Feb. 13, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 188 at 3, the assessment must be based on sufficient facts so as to establish its reasonableness. Rochester Optical Mfg. Co., supra, at 5.
In our view, the record does not show that the contracting officer reasonably considered whether the procurement could be set aside for exclusive small business participation. On the contrary, the record indicates that the contracting officer failed to take into account known information indicating the interest of capable small business concerns in this procurement.
As discussed above, the contracting officer reports that prior to determining that there was no reasonable expectation of receiving offers from at least two responsible small business concerns, contracting personnel contacted five contractors in the GSA Advantage database, including three small business concerns and two large businesses, and also a nonprofit organization; according to the agency, all responded that they could not perform the agency’s requirement. However, the agency has pointed to nothing in the record that indicates that the reported inability of the selected entities to undertake the contemplated contract was related to their size (rather than to other considerations, such as, for example, other commitments).
As part of our development of the record, we requested and received comments from SBA, who contends that the agency’s market research was inadequate. SBA notes that the contracting officer failed to investigate other recommended, readily available sources of information concerning the availability of responsible small business concerns. For example, FAR § 13.102, applicable to simplified acquisitions such as this one, provides that “[c]ontracting officers should use the Central Contractor Registration [CCR] database . . . as their primary sources of vendor information.” In this regards, SBA notes that small business concerns are encouraged to register in the CCR. The contracting officer, however, did not consult the CCR. Had she done so, using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code that she views as appropriate, NAICS code 54161, Management Consulting Services, she would have discovered a large pool of small business
Page 4 B-294267
concerns from which to select firms for further evaluation.3 SBA also points to the agency’s failure to search SBA’s PRO-NET, which is an online database of information on more than 195,000 small, disadvantaged, Section 8(a), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), and women-owned businesses. (SBA recently merged the CCR and PRO-NET databases into the “Dynamic Small Business Search” database.)
In addition, FAR § 19.202-2 generally requires contracting officers, before issuing solicitations, to make “every reasonable effort to find additional small business concerns,” which “should include contacting the agency SBA procurement center representative, or if there is none, the SBA.” Likewise, FAR § 19.202 requires contracting officers to consider recommendations of the agency Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, or the Director’s designee, as to whether a particular acquisition should be set aside for small businesses, while FAR § 19.501(e) states that the contracting officer shall review acquisitions to determine if they can be set aside for small business, “giving consideration to the recommendations of agency personnel having cognizance of the agency’s small business programs.” Again, however, the contracting officer failed to utilize these available sources of information concerning potential small business participation.
Furthermore, the record establishes that the contracting officer in fact was on notice, prior to issuance of the solicitation on June 18, of substantial small business interest in this procurement, including interest from small business concerns that the agency itself ultimately determined to be capable of performing the requirement. In this regard, in response to the presolicitation notice, six small business concerns requested a copy of the solicitation, and two included evidence of their capabilities. Further, the agency ultimately found two of the small business concerns (including one that had submitted prior to issuance of the solicitation a qualifications statement with its request for a copy of the solicitation) to be capable and qualified and requested each to submit a proposal. The contracting officer, however, apparently did not evaluate the capabilities of any of the small businesses which had expressed
3 Although the contracting officer reports that she found no small business concerns on CCR when reviewing, for purposes of responding to the protest, NAICS code 54161, Management Consulting Services, it appears that the contracting officer simply failed to review the specific categories comprising this overall code. For example, had she reviewed NAICS code 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services, a subcategory of 54161, she would have discovered 344 active small business concerns under that category in the District of Columbia alone. (Information Ventures was also listed under NAICS code 541611, albeit at a Philadelphia location.) Likewise, had the contracting officer reviewed NAICS code 541613, Marketing Consulting Services, another subcategory of 54161, she would have discovered 175 active small business concerns under that category in the District of Columbia alone.
Page 5 B-294267
interest in the solicitation to determine, before issuing the solicitation, whether her previous determination that there was no reasonable expectation of receiving offers from at least two responsible small business concerns was still supportable. The agency, instead, simply issued the solicitation on an unrestricted basis. We agree with SBA that the contracting officer should have assessed the capability of the small business concerns that had responded to the presolicitation notice before issuing the solicitation on an unrestricted basis. See Safety Storage, Inc., B-280851, Oct. 29, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 102 at 3 (contracting officer failed to survey firms that had responded to Commerce Business Daily announcements to assess their capability to perform the contract); see also ACCU-Lab Medical Testing, B-270259, Feb. 20, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 106 at 3 (contracting officer failed to consider small business concerns that showed interest when requirement was still set-aside).
Since the contracting officer did not assess the capability of the small business concerns that had responded to the presolicitation notice, and otherwise did not make a reasonable effort to survey the market to ascertain whether there was a reasonable expectation that two or more responsible small business concerns would submit bids at fair market prices, before issuing the solicitation on an unrestricted basis, we find that the determination that there was no reasonable expectation of receiving offers from at least two responsible small business concerns was not based on sufficient facts to establish its reasonableness. Therefore, we sustain the protest. 4
Because MMS has already determined that two small businesses are capable of meeting the requirement, we recommend that the contracting officer cancel the solicitation and re-issue it as a set-aside for small businesses, unless she can determine, after conducting a proper market survey, that there is not a reasonable expectation of receiving offers from at least two responsible small businesses at fair market prices. We also recommend that Information Ventures be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’
4 Information Ventures also contends that it was improper to solicit the requirement under FAR subpart 13.5 because the services are not a commercial item. Under FAR § 2.101, a commercial item with respect to services is defined as “services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed or specific outcomes to be achieved and under standard commercial terms and conditions.” In this regard, agencies are required to conduct market research to determine whether commercial items are available that could meet the agencies requirements. FAR § 12.101. Since it is unclear from the record whether there are “established catalog or market prices” for these services, the contracting officer should document her market research in this regard prior to reissuing the solicitation.
Page 6 B-294267
Page 7 B-294267
fees. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1) (2004). The protester’s certified claim for costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, must be submitted to the agency within 60 days of receiving this decision.
The protest is sustained.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: Research Paper Requirement for the Class:
A Guide to Writing Your Paper
Term Paper.
Given the recent spate of Wall Street protests and demonstrations against economic inequities, your assignment is to write a paper examining the political science subtopic of participation focusing on this specific form of participation: protests. Use these current examples as the focus of the paper, but your analysis should include the political science context. In developing your paper, you?ll be examining such questions as, ?Who are the participants and what are their agendas?? ?What are some of the responses by presidential candidates and other politicians?? ?How are these demonstrations portrayed in the media?? Analyze the issues that are raised in the protests and provide a scholarly context in your analysis. Research the political science literature and address what you have discovered in terms of the scholarly research that examines protests as political participation.
While researching the scholarly literature, you are not necessarily looking for research about these particular protests, or the specific current event related to them, but for what the research shows about protests as political participation in general. You might examine how protest groups operate, how they interact with representatives, how they are funded, and how they affect policies and policy changes, enactment of laws, and enforcement of laws, etc.
In political science, thesis sentences, like the question stems described below, are often the type of questions that you see in the ?Critical Thinking Questions? in the back of each chapter in your textbook, as well as those you saw in the midterm. These are the types of questions that political scientists examine and are the types of questions you?ll want to think about in relation to writing your paper, tying your research to the current political event.
In writing your research paper, you will need to put the topic you choose into context of the scholarly research on that topic. What does that mean? It means that you?ll need to research and use scholarly journal articles in the social sciences and apply them to your topic. You may make use of newspaper articles or information from websites in order to find the current protest events and the current information on them, but then you must show evidence of your understanding of the issues by including at least five credible, reliable references to the scholarly research on the topic.
To clarify: I?m looking for a research paper in political science; in other words, using information you find on your particular issue, put it into context of the scholarly information written by political scientists and other experts. Commentary heard on Fox news or on AM radio are NOT scholarly, nor are articles you find in Time or Newsweek. You?ll have to research the scholarly journals for articles that present research information on your issue.
Your paper must be 7-10 double-space, typed pages using 10 or 12 font size.
Pay particular attention to sections III, IV, and IX below.
I. Choose the topic to research, and then:
? Answer the follow questions for yourself before writing your thesis statement:
What is the point of my paper?
What do I want this paper to prove?
Can I tell the reader anything new or different?
? To help you define a topic, write a research question about your topic by completing one of the following question stems:
What is/was the role of . . . in . . .
What are/were the effects/results of . . .
Who/what influenced . . . to . . .
What are the competing sides . . .
How does/did . . . change . . .
? Develop your preliminary thesis:
In starting your paper, change your research question into a statement that you?ll support with your research.
II. Divide your paper into sections.
A. Introduction
B. Introduce the aspect you?d like to further discuss and analyze along with the integration of your research as well as textbook and in-class materials
C. Conclusion
III. Begin your search.
Find current newspaper articles about the issue you?ve chosen. You need to have at least five credible, reliable sources other than the newspaper articles and textbook. Think of key words or phrases to describe your topic and use them when you search for the following:
? Books: search the library?s online catalog
? Articles: search Academic Search Premier or JSTOR for full-text articles (use your pipeline username/password to search from home, or elsewhere)
? Web: search the web for relevant discussion of the issues
IV. Evaluate your sources
Select materials that are relevant to your topic. When searching, select journal articles or books rather than popular magazines such as Time or Newsweek. When selecting web sources, pay particular attention to where the information comes from; using criteria such as: Who?s the author? What are their credentials? Who?s sponsoring the page? Is the information reliable? Who?s the intended audience?

Essay Instructions: the topic of the paper is protest art. in this case, the art is in the form of songs. for this project, I have chosen the songs, Redemption Song, and get up stand up. by Bob Marley.the bulk of the research resources should be "academic" scholarly books and articles in refereed journals.the paper should offer as its central act of interpretation, an analysis of a work or works of art.why did this artist choose this particular form to express a particular form of protest? what is being protested and how? what style characterizes the work? how does the work embody, alter, and/or subvert stylistic and aesthetic conventions? what kinds of demands does the work place on its audience? how, in other words does this work of art ask its audience to respond? I know that is alot. but please help. I am swamped with other work. thanks.