Triple P Services, Inc.

B-271777 Jul 24, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contention that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal and impermissibly made award on the basis of initial proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the protester's proposal was unacceptable as submitted. Four proposals were rated acceptable. None were rated susceptible to being made acceptable. Were rated unacceptable. Because Triple P's proposal was rated unacceptable. It was not considered for award. 196.51) was lower than Teltara's ($1. Upon learning that its lower-priced proposal was not selected for award. Triple P also contends that any flaws in its proposal could easily have been remedied with discussions. We will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. View Decision Matter of: Triple P Services, Inc. File: B-271777 Date: July 24, 1996 Contention that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal and impermissibly made award on the basis of initial proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the protester's proposal was unacceptable as submitted, and appropriately selected the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal for award, as the solicitation indicated it would. Attorneys DECISION Triple P Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Teltara, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT02-95-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army for hospital housekeeping and grounds maintenance services at the Noble Army Community Hospital, Fort McClellan, Alabama. Triple P argues that the Army unreasonably found its proposal unacceptable in four of five evaluated areas, and improperly made award on the basis of initial proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP for these services anticipated award to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced technically acceptable offer. Section M of the RFP set forth five evaluation factors: (1) staffing plan; (2) prior experience in hospital custodial services; (3) orientation training; (4) quality control plan; and (5) safety plan. Section M also reserved the right to award on the basis of initial proposals, without discussions. By the closing date of November 28, 1995, the Army received 11 proposals. Upon conclusion of the evaluations, four proposals were rated acceptable; none were rated susceptible to being made acceptable; and the remaining seven, including Triple P's proposal, were rated unacceptable. Based on these results, the Army decided not to hold discussions, and awarded to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced acceptable offer, Teltara Inc. on March 22, 1996. Because Triple P's proposal was rated unacceptable, it was not considered for award, even though its price ($1,091,196.51) was lower than Teltara's ($1,146,648). Upon learning that its lower-priced proposal was not selected for award, Triple P filed this protest. Triple P challenges its evaluation in each of the four areas where the Army rated its proposal unacceptable--i.e., staffing plan; orientation training; quality control plan; and safety plan. Triple P also contends that any flaws in its proposal could easily have been remedied with discussions. In considering a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. ESCO, Inc., 66 Comp.Gen. 404 (1987), 87-1 CPD para. 450. Based on our review of the record here, we see no basis for concluding that the evaluation was unreasonable. For example, the RFP at paragraph C.1.2.3.1 required the contractor's employees to complete orientation training covering housekeeping for medical treatment facilities, including training in infection control, within 2 weeks prior to beginning work. An exception to this requirement was that employees who had previously been trained were permitted to complete retraining within 2 weeks after starting work. Triple P's proposal stated only that new employees would receive training within 14 days of the employees' starting dates. The Army evaluators concluded that Triple P's proposal failed to meet the RFP's requirements for orientation training and rated the proposal unacceptable in this area. The evaluators explained that housekeepers "must be trained in and familiar with [i]nfection [c]ontrol procedures, [b]lood [b]orne [p]athogens, [u]niversal [p]recautions, [p]atient [c]onfidentiality, [and] handling of medical waste . . . BEFORE they begin work in the hospital environment." According to the Army, the proposal was unacceptable because it only addressed training for new employees, and even then, failed to commit to completion of such training before placing new employees in the hospital environment.