Trifax Corporation, B-279561, June 29, 1998

B-279561 Jun 29, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest against elimination of a proposal from competitive range is sustained where the record evidences that the score assigned the protester's past/present performance was unreasonably low. Would have been among the range of scores assigned the competitive range proposals. The RFP stated the relative weights of these factors as follows: Factors 1 and 2 are equal and. Are less important than factor 3. 3 are more important than factor 4. The government is interested in proposals that offer value in meeting the requirements - performance and technical quality with acceptable risk at a fair and reasonable price. Could become the determinative selection factor if technical quality proposals are determined to be substantially equal. View Decision Matter of: Trifax Corporation File: B-279561 Date: June 29, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Trifax Corporation protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DADA10-98-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army for nonpersonal occupational health care services for federal employees at existing and future Federal Occupational Health (FOH) provision sites in several states. /1/ We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued on September 30, 1997 as an 8(a) set-aside, contemplated an award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base period and 4 option years. The RFP, at sections M.2.5 and M.2.5.2, stated a best value evaluation scheme, considering the following four factors: (1) past and present performance; (2) contractor quality control plan; (3) technical quality (oral presentation); and (4) price/cost. The RFP stated the relative weights of these factors as follows: Factors 1 and 2 are equal and, individually, are less important than factor 3, and factors 1, 2, and 3 are more important than factor 4. The government is interested in proposals that offer value in meeting the requirements - performance and technical quality with acceptable risk at a fair and reasonable price. Factor 4, however, could become the determinative selection factor if technical quality proposals are determined to be substantially equal, or if a proposal deemed superior in technical quality is determined not to be worth the high cost premium. Section M.2.1 stated that, in accordance with the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.215-16 (June 1997), Alternate II, award of a contract based on initial proposals without discussions was intended, although the government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the contracting officer later determined it was necessary. [DELETED] offerors submitted initial proposals by the October 30 closing date. The agency evaluated proposals and determined that discussions would be necessary. A competitive range of [DELETED] proposals was established based on the respective technical rankings and prices. The overall technical scores of these proposals ranged from a low of [DELETED] to a high of [DELETED] points. /2/ The overall evaluated prices, including option years and proposed escalation, ranged from a low of $[DELETED] million /3/ to a high of $[DELETED] million. The point score and evaluated price of Trifax's proposal--[DELETED] and $[DELETED] million--fell outside of the competitive range and the Army eliminated it from further consideration. Trifax's low score largely resulted from low scores under two evaluation factors: past/present performance and quality control plan. /4/ Under the past/present performance factor, the four documented reasons that Trifax's proposal was downgraded were (1) concerns about unidentified problems with Trifax's payment of employee benefits, (2) reports that the firm issued checks to employees with insufficient funds, (3) Trifax's alleged difficulty in recruiting wellness/fitness providers on one contract, and (4) Trifax's alleged submission of two contract references instead of three as required by the RFP. Under the quality control plan factor, all three evaluators stated a concern regarding the selection of sites for site visits, and the frequency of site visits and performance reviews. By letter of January 7, 1998, the Army notified Trifax that its proposal had been eliminated from the competitive range. No reasons for this elimination were provided in this letter. On January 9, prior to receiving the agency's elimination letter, Trifax sent a letter to the agency in response to a newspaper report concerning Trifax's administration of the two contracts with the District of Columbia, which Trifax had listed as references in its proposal. Trifax stated that the report contained "seriously inaccurate information," including the statement that Trifax had not paid its employees the full benefits to which they were entitled.