Human Resource Systems, Inc.; Health Staffers, Inc.

Human Resource Systems, Inc.; Health Staffers, Inc. BNUMBER: B-262254.3; B-262254.4; B-262254.5 DATE: December 21, 1995 TITLE: Human Resource Systems, Inc.; Health Staffers, Inc. ********************************************************************** 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. Matter of:Human Resource Systems, Inc.; Health Staffers, Inc. File: B-262254.3; B-262254.4; B-262254.5 Date: December 21, 1995 William A. Roberts III, Esq., Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Brian A. Darst, Esq., and Marcia L. Stuart, Esq., Howrey & Simon, for Human Resource Systems, Inc; and James D. Bachman, Esq., and Todd R. Metz, Esq., Doyle & Bachman, for Health Staffers, Inc., the protesters. Jeffrey M. Cameron, for Nurse Works, Inc., an interested party. John R. Osing, Jr., Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation for registered nurses (RN) listed experience as an evaluation factor and specifically requested information concerning the numbers and types of personnel previously provided, agency reasonably evaluated whether offerors had specific experience providing RNs in the numbers contemplated by the solicitation. 2. The concept of unbalancing is not applicable in a negotiated procurement in which price is not the primary factor in the award decision. 3. Protest against award without discussions is denied where solicitation advised offerors of the agency's intent to award the contract without discussions, and agency reasonably determined that awardee's proposal was realistically priced and represented the best value to the government. 4. Agency properly may accept from the offeror already selected for award a post-closing modification to its proposed price. DECISION Human Resource Systems, Inc. (HRSI) and Health Staffers, Inc. protest the Naval Medical Logistics Command's award of a contract to Nurse Works, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62645-95-R-0022, for registered nurse (RN) and operating room (OR) technician services. HRSI primarily challenges the evaluation of its technical and price proposals. Health Staffers challenges the evaluation of its technical proposal and the agency's determination to make award on the basis of initial proposals. We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a base year with four 1-year option periods, to provide shifts of RN and OR technicians. Each contract year was divided into 10 base and option lots specifying the department or unit in which the personnel would be required; the lots were further divided into contract line items which specified when the services would be required and the number of shifts to be provided. For example, Lot 2 was for emergency department RNs, and within Lot 2, line item No. 0034AA specified 365 12-hour day shifts. The RFP provided for award to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer provided the best value to the government, with technical factors considered slightly more important than price. The solicitation set forth three equally weighted technical evaluation factors: (1) implementation plan, (2) management policies and (3) experience. With respect to price, offerors were required to propose a firm, fixed price per shift for each contract line item, and to provide a supporting cost breakdown for each shift which included the average compensation rate, fringe benefit rate, fringe benefits, total personnel costs, management expenses, profit, and total price. Price was to be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and completeness. The RFP stated that the Navy intended to award the contract on the basis of initial proposals. The Navy received 24 offers. The technical evaluation team assigned to each evaluation factor and overall technical proposal one of four color/adjectival ratings: (1) blue (exceeds requirements/high probability of success); (2) green (satisfactory/good probability of success); (3) yellow (less than satisfactory/low probability of success); or (4) red (unacceptable). The cost evaluation team (CET) used each offeror's cost breakdown structure to calculate the offeror's weighted average for each component of the breakdown; the weighted average then was compared to the independent government cost estimate for the component and to the average price/cost of all offerors for the component to determine price realism and reasonableness.