Dr. Carole J. Barry

B-271248 Jun 28, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the solicitation stated that technical considerations were more important than cost and the agency rationally evaluated protester's technical proposal as containing numerous weaknesses and deficiencies. Technical factors were stated to be more important than cost. TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility of the contracting agency. Our Office will not make an independent determination of the merits of technical proposals. We will examine the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Barry's experience was not described in sufficient detail to warrant a higher score. View Decision Matter of: Dr. Carole J. Barry File: B-271248 Date: June 28, 1996 In a best value procurement, where the solicitation stated that technical considerations were more important than cost and the agency rationally evaluated protester's technical proposal as containing numerous weaknesses and deficiencies, agency reasonably determined to make award to a technically superior, slightly higher-priced offeror. Attorneys DECISION Dr. Carole J. Barry protests the evaluation of proposals and the resulting award of a contract to Psychiatric Associates of New Mexico, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 96-01/LBB, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Albuquerque Area Indian Health Service (IHS). We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on September 14, 1995, sought proposals for a fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract, to provide psychiatric services to IHS patients for a base year, with three 1-year options. Technical factors were stated to be more important than cost. The RFP contained the following technical evaluation factors and associated points: (1) experience (50 points); (2) professional requirements (30 points); (3) availability (10 points); and (4) health requirements (10 points), for a maximum possible total of 100 points. The agency received four proposals, and after evaluation of initial proposals, established a competitive range of three proposals, including those of Dr. Barry and of Psychiatric Associates (which offered the services of Dr. Olson). The agency received two best and final offers (BAFO), with Dr. Barry's receiving a technical score of 83.5 points (considered "moderately acceptable") at an evaluated total price of $228,800, and Psychiatric Associates receiving a technical score of 90 points (considered "highly acceptable") at an evaluated price of $264,000. The agency concluded that Psychiatric Associates's proposal represented the best overall value to the government and made award to Psychiatric Associates on February 1, 1996. This protest followed. TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility of the contracting agency. Our Office will not make an independent determination of the merits of technical proposals; rather, we will examine the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Litton Sys., Inc., B-237596.3, Aug. 8, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 115. Here, as set forth below, we find the agency's evaluation unobjectionable. Experience Under this evaluation criterion, the RFP called for the evaluators to assess whether, within the past year, the offerors provided certain psychiatric services, such as management of psychotropic medications, and treated significant numbers of adolescents and adults (including the elderly). Dr. Barry's proposal received 42.5 out of a possible 50 points under this factor. The evaluators concluded that Dr. Barry's experience was not described in sufficient detail to warrant a higher score. For example, one evaluator noted that Dr. Barry failed to adequately describe her part-time private practice and her position as a part-time consultant to the New Mexico State Hospital in Las Vegas, New Mexico. Transcript (Tr.) at 19. [1] In addition, the agency found that Dr. Barry's proposal was ambiguous regarding whether she had treated significant numbers of adolescents within the last year. In this regard, the agency points to the following language from Dr. Barry's proposal: "As stated elsewhere in my proposal, at the risk of violating patient confidentiality, I do not know how to document the fact that I have treated a significant number of adolescents and adults (including elderly) during the last year." The agency was unable to determine from Dr. Barry's proposal whether she had treated a significant number of adolescents as part of her patient population. In our view, the imprecise language in Dr. Barry's proposal, in conjunction with the lack of detail provided by Dr. Barry concerning her private practice and her part-time consultation position, made it difficult for the agency to conclude that Dr.