Este Medical Services, Inc.

B-261845.2 Sep 29, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Although it was rated as susceptible to being made acceptable. Which was submitted after discussions. Contracting agencies are not obligated to afford all-encompassing discussions or to discuss every element of a competitive range proposal. Agencies are only required to lead offerors into the areas of their proposals considered deficient. REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. Which was of lesser importance. Which were of equal importance. Seventeen proposals were received by September 12. The proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB). The contracting officer was designated the source selection official (SSO). View Decision Matter of: Este Medical Services, Inc. File: B-261845.2 Date: September 29, 1995 * REDACTED DECISION Contracting agency reasonably eliminated the protester's proposal from the competitive range, although it was rated as susceptible to being made acceptable, and even though the protester's proposal had previously been included in the competitive range, where technical weakness concerning the protester's experience as reflected in its revised proposal, which was submitted after discussions, caused it to receive the [deleted] lowest technical rating, such that it no longer had a reasonable chance of being selected for award. Contracting agencies are not obligated to afford all-encompassing discussions or to discuss every element of a competitive range proposal; agencies are only required to lead offerors into the areas of their proposals considered deficient. Attorneys REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. DECISION We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on July 29, 1994, contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite quantity contract (based on estimated hours of nursing services required) for a base period and two 1-year options. The RFP stated that award would be made to a single offeror who submitted the "best overall proposal" considering the stated evaluation factors. The RFP contained two evaluation factors: (1) technical/quality; and (2) price, which was of lesser importance. The technical/quality factor had two subfactors, which were of equal importance, experience/capability/availability[1] and understanding the requirement. [2] Finally, the RFP stated that price would be evaluated but not scored. Seventeen proposals were received by September 12, 1994, the amended date for receipt of initial proposals. The proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB); the contracting officer was designated the source selection official (SSO). As relevant here, the SSEB's initial evaluation resulted in Este being ranked [deleted] of [deleted] offerors. Specifically, the SSEB expressed concern about Este's experience because it was unclear whether the firm ever held a contract in its own name. Further, while Este in its proposal referred to a relationship with International Health Services (IHS), an experienced company, the proposal did not show a joint venture relationship or any other legally binding commitment by IHS to support Este in performing this contract. [3] Nevertheless, the contracting officer included all offers, including Este's, in the competitive range. On April 24, 1995, the agency, among other things, asked Este the following discussion question: "[Provide d]etails regarding any contract that [Este] has held in its own company name. You are advised that since [Este] is the offeror and if a contract were awarded, Este would be legally bound to perform. Any agreements between the prime contractor and other companies is an autonomous agreement. Therefore, [Este] must be found to be capable of performance on its own merit/previous experience." Revised proposals were received. Este stated in its revised proposal that Este was established in 1994 and that it has owners in "common" with IHS and that IHS was its "mentor." In addition, Este stated that it was awarded only one contract in the past to provide Fort Knox the services of two midwives. The agency states that it was unable to find evidence that Este met the minimum experience requirements or that Este had established a subcontracting arrangement with IHS or obtained any other legally binding commitment from the firm to assist Este in the performance of this contract. The protester in fact stated in its proposal that IHS and Este were separate legal entities.