The American Indian Center, Inc., B-278678, February 27, 1998

B-278678 Feb 27, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest objecting to technical evaluation of proposal is denied where record demonstrates that evaluators' judgments as to merits of proposal were reasonable. 2. General Accounting Office will not consider complaint that awardee lacks the stability of management and financial integrity necessary for performance since such a complaint is in essence a challenge to the contracting officer's affirmative determination of responsibility. The protester contends that the evaluators' criticisms of its proposal were unfounded and that the awardee should have been found ineligible for award. The most important of which were program description (worth 35 percent of an offeror's technical score). [1] but that cost would be a discriminating factor in the event there was no significant difference in the technical evaluations of two or more offers. View Decision Matter of: The American Indian Center, Inc. File: B-278678 Date February 27, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The American Indian Center, Inc. (AIC) protests the evaluation of its proposal and the award of a contract to the Dallas Inter-tribal Center, Inc. (DIC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 246-97-R-0012, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, for operation of a medical and dental clinic serving the Indian population of the Dallas, Texas metropolitan area. The protester contends that the evaluators' criticisms of its proposal were unfounded and that the awardee should have been found ineligible for award. We deny the protest. The RFP solicited proposals to furnish, equip, and staff an outpatient medical and dental clinic accessible to the Indian population of the Dallas metropolitan region. The solicitation advised offerors that technical factors, the most important of which were program description (worth 35 percent of an offeror's technical score), health problem statements (worth 20 percent), and equipment and facilities (also worth 20 percent), would be of paramount importance in the selection of an awardee, [1] but that cost would be a discriminating factor in the event there was no significant difference in the technical evaluations of two or more offers. RFP Sec. M. Competition under the solicitation was limited to Indian-owned firms, and award of a cost reimbursement contract was contemplated. Two proposals were received by the September 2, 1997, closing date, one from AIC and one from the incumbent contractor, DIC. Upon initial evaluation, AIC's proposal received a score of 86 and DIC's a score of 64 out of a total of 100 available points. After holding discussions with both offerors and furnishing them with the opportunity to revise their proposals, the evaluators reevaluated and rescored the proposals. The evaluators found that DIC had furnished information that had been missing from its initial proposal and awarded the proposal a significantly improved score of 97.5. AIC's proposal, on the other hand, received a substantially lower score of 68 because the revised proposal confirmed some of the weaknesses initially noted by the evaluators. Among the weaknesses noted in AIC's proposal were the location of its clinic at a site not accessible by public transportation; its proposed reliance on volunteers to transport and install government-owned equipment at its facility; its failure to have hired or obtained commitments from required staff; and its failure to have submitted property and procurement manuals. After evaluation of AIC's and DIC's costs proposals, the agency concluded that their evaluated costs were virtually equal (AIC, $681,487.62; DIC, $681,975.69). Because DIC had received a significantly higher technical score than AIC and its costs were considered reasonable, DIC was selected for award. A contract was awarded to DIC on October 31. AIC received a telephonic debriefing on November 13, and protested to our Office on November 19. The protester takes issue with the agency's evaluation of its proposal. The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility of the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them, and it must bear the burden of any difficulties resulting from a defective evaluation. Federal Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-250135.4, May 24, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 398 at 8-9. In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding the merits of proposals; rather, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Young Enters., Inc., B-256851.2, Aug. 11, 1994, 94-2 CPD Para. 159 at 3. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation does not render it unreasonable. CORVAC, Inc., B-244766, Nov.