Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., B-279561.2; B-279561.3; B-279651; B-279651.2, July 6, 1998

Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., B-279561.2; B-279561.3; B-279651; B-279651.2, July 6, 1998 TITLE: Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., B-279561.2; B-279561.3; B-279651; B-279651.2, July 6, 1998 BNUMBER: B-279561.2; B-279561.3; B-279651; B-279651.2 DATE: July 6, 1998 ********************************************************************** Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., B-279561.2; B-279561.3; B-279651; B-279651.2, July 6, 1998 Decision Matter of: Professional Performance Development Group, Inc. File: B-279561.2; B-279561.3; B-279651; B-279651.2 Date: July 6, 1998 Theodore Bailey, Esq., and Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Theodore M. Bailey, P.C., for the protester. Col. Nicolas P. Retson, Lt. Col. Samuel T. Stevenson, and Robert D. Hamel, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Discussions adequately led protester to agency's concern about an extra layer of management arising from a proposal for occupational health care services, which offered a corporate-level coordinator in addition to a required nurse program coordinator, where only one of the positions was required by the solicitation, and the discussion question asked for a discussion of the process and the responsibilities of both positions. 2. Protester is not an interested party eligible to protest the evaluation of the awardee's proposal where it would not be next in line for award if its protest of the evaluation were sustained. DECISION Professional Performance Development Group, Inc. (PPDG) protests the award of contracts to OMV Medical, Inc. under request for proposal (RFP) No. DADA10-98-R-0002 (RFP 0002) and RFP No. DADA10-98-R-0003 (RFP 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 per each solicitation. PPDG alleges that discussions held with PPDG were inadequate and that the evaluation of OMV's proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part. The RFPs, issued on September 30, 1997 as section 8(a) set-asides, contemplated awards of fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contracts for a base period with 4 option years. The RFPs, at sections M.2.5 and M.2.5.2, stated a best value evaluation scheme with the following four factors: (1) past and present performance; (2) contractor quality control plan; (3) technical quality (oral presentation); and (4) price/cost. The RFPs stated the relative weights of these factors as: 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. Eleven offerors submitted proposals in response to each RFP. The agency evaluated proposals and established a competitive range of six proposals submitted by the same six offerors under each RFP. PPDG's proposal, which was included with OMV's proposal in the competitive range, received an overall "good" rating.1 [1] Among the weaknesses found in PPDG's proposal was its quality control plan, which was scored/rated as 81/good. The specific concerns with the quality control plan included confusing job titles and responsibilities, an organization chart which did not recognize the contracting officer's representative's (COR) functions related to the wellness/fitness program, and an unnecessary layer of corporate-level management (i.e., corporate-level coordinators) between the nurse program coordinators and the top of the corporate structure. The competitive range offerors received written discussions. The discussion letter, dated January 5, 1998, to PPDG stated the following: The quality control plan does not clearly state who does what; seems to confuse job titles and responsibilities. The organizational chart does not recognize COR functions in relationship to wellness/fitness program. Discuss process and responsibilities of clinical coordinators at corporate level and nurse program coordinators. PPDG responded by supplementing its quality control plan with more information about staff positions and responsibilities, and an explanation of the COR functions in relation to the program.