The Arora Group, Inc.

B-270706.2 Jun 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The services will include diagnostic interpretation of radiologic examinations. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. Technical merit was considered more important than price. The RFP advised that if the technical scores of two or more offerors were the same. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two technical factors listed in descending order of importance: experience and understanding of the requirement. The experience evaluation factor (which was substantially more important than understanding of the requirement factor) is comprised of two subfactors . Six timely proposals were received and after an initial evaluation. View Decision Matter of: The Arora Group, Inc. File: B-270706.2 Date: June 18, 1996 Attorneys DECISION The Arora Group, Inc. protests the selection of Dr. Isis Hannallah for award of a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHC35-95-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army for radiology services. Arora alleges flaws in the agency's evaluation of both its own and Hannallah's proposals, specifically referencing certain advantages associated with its radiologists' subspecialty and post graduate training. We deny the protest. Issued as a total small business set-aside, the RFP sought proposals for two full-time radiologists to provide diagnostic radiology services at DeWitt Army Community Hospital, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The services will include diagnostic interpretation of radiologic examinations, diagnostic consultation related to diagnostic imaging, and the full range of routine diagnostic and therapeutic work performed by a board certified diagnostic radiologist. The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period with four 1-year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. Technical merit was considered more important than price, but the RFP advised that if the technical scores of two or more offerors were the same, then price would be the deciding factor. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two technical factors listed in descending order of importance: experience and understanding of the requirement. The experience evaluation factor (which was substantially more important than understanding of the requirement factor) is comprised of two subfactors -- the experience of the proposed radiologists, and industry and government contracts performed during the past 2 years. Six timely proposals were received and after an initial evaluation, the agency included all six proposals in the competitive range. Technical issues were raised with each offeror during several rounds of discussions following which best and final offers (BAFOs) were requested and received. Evaluation of BAFOs resulted in Hannallah's BAFO receiving a perfect technical score of 100 out of a possible 100 points, and Arora's BAFO a technical score of 98 points. Each firm's identical BAFO prices were determined to be reasonable and realistic. In making the selection, the contracting officer, as source selection authority, noted that Hannallah's proposal reflected superior technical merit, as indicated by its score, which was the highest assigned. She concurred with the evaluators' determination that Hannallah's proposal was superior to Arora's because its proposed radiologists have the most general and diverse radiology experience (as compared to Arora's more specialized radiology experience) and that, as the incumbent, Hannallah possessed the most relevant past performance among the offerors. The contracting officer determined that Hannallah's proposal represented the best value to the government and selected that firm for award. After receiving notice of the selection, Arora filed this protest. [1] Arora argues that in judging the relative merit of both its own and Hannallah's proposal, the Army improperly evaluated the offerors' experience. According to Arora, its proposal should have been considered superior given the experience, board certification and subspecialty fellowship training Arora's radiologists possess and the firm's greater experience in providing contract radiology services to the government. The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily a matter within the contracting agency's discretion since it must bear the burden of any difficulties resulting from a defective evaluation. Sherikon, Inc.; Technology Management & Analysis Corp., B-256306 et al., June 7, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 358. We will examine an evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria.