Dylantic, Inc.

B-261886 Oct 30, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against rejection of proposal as technically unacceptable and subsequent award on the basis of initial proposals to next lower-priced offeror is denied where protester failed to comply with solicitation requirement for detailed information demonstrating compliance with qualifications requirements for pharmacy technicians. There was a reasonable basis for concluding that awardee had submitted the low. Agency was not required to conduct discussions. Offerors were to submit both technical and cost proposals. A copy of the certificate is required. A copy of a current BLS-C card is required.". That which is requested in this solicitation. Ten proposals were received by the March 23. View Decision Matter of: Dylantic, Inc. File: B-261886 Date: October 30, 1995 Protest against rejection of proposal as technically unacceptable and subsequent award on the basis of initial proposals to next lower-priced offeror is denied where protester failed to comply with solicitation requirement for detailed information demonstrating compliance with qualifications requirements for pharmacy technicians; since the solicitation clearly advised offerors of the agency's intent to award without discussions, and there was a reasonable basis for concluding that awardee had submitted the low, technically acceptable offer, agency was not required to conduct discussions. Attorneys DECISION Dylantic, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable and the award of a contract to The Chesapeake Center, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62645-95-R-0026, issued by the Naval Medical Logistics Command for pharmacy technician services for the three Branch Medical Clinics associated with the Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to the low-priced, technically acceptable offeror for a 1-year base period plus 4 option years for the full-time services of 21 pharmacy technicians. Offerors were to submit both technical and cost proposals. Regarding the technical proposal, the RFP set forth detailed requirements for information pertaining to the qualifications of the proposed individuals to perform the required services. [1] Solicitation clause L.18, entitled "Instructions For Preparation of Proposals," provided in pertinent part that: "(1) . . . [t]he technical proposal shall include the following documentation: "(i) (A) Proof of graduation from a Pharmacy Technician program accredited by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists (ASHP) or proof of completion of a formal (i.e. technical or hospital based program) pharmacy technician training program. A copy of the certificate is required, or, "(i) (B) Proof of experience of at least 12 months within the preceding 36 months as a pharmacy technician. . . . . . "(iii) Letters of recommendation from two practicing physicians, pharmacists, or pharmacy supervisors attesting to the health care worker's clinical skills. Reference letters must include name, title, phone number, date of reference, address and signature of the individual providing reference. "(iv) Proof of current Basic Life Support, Level C (BLS-C) [Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care Provider training certification]. A copy of a current BLS-C card is required." The above clause specifically cautioned offerors that "[a]ny proposal which does not offer at a minimum, that which is requested in this solicitation, may be determined to be substantially incomplete and not warrant any further consideration." In addition, the RFP stated the government's intention to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions, and specifically warned that initial offers should contain an offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. Ten proposals were received by the March 23, 1995, closing time. Although Dylantic, the incumbent contractor for these services, submitted the lowest-priced offer, its proposal was found to be technically unacceptable due to deficiencies in the information provided to establish the qualifications of the individuals it proposed to perform the required services. Of 27 candidates proposed, only 7 were found acceptable; the remaining 20 were judged unacceptable based on the failure to satisfy at least one of the employee qualifications requirements. Upon learning of the resulting award to the second-low offeror (Chesapeake), Dylantic filed this protest with our Office. Dylantic argues that it furnished sufficient information to demonstrate adequate qualifications for at least 21 of the proposed candidates.