The Arora Group, Inc., B-280978.3; B-280978.4, January 27,

The Arora Group, Inc., B-280978.3; B-280978.4, January 27, BNUMBER: B-280978.3; B-280978.4 DATE: January 27, 1999 TITLE: The Arora Group, Inc., B-280978.3; B-280978.4, January 27, 1999 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:The Arora Group, Inc. File: B-280978.3; B-280978.4 Date:January 27, 1999 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, for the protester. Johnathan Bailey, Esq., Theodore M. Bailey, P.C., for Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., an intervenor. Maj. David Newsome, Jr., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal is denied where review of record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. 2. Cost/technical tradeoff was reasonable where agency considered the costs and technical merits of each proposal in deciding that the awardee's proposal represented the best value to the government. DECISION The Arora Group, Inc. protests the evaluation of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. DADA10-98-R-0014, issued by the U.S. Army Medical Command for occupational health services. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued to procure occupational health services at Federal Occupational Health Centers (FOH) and Wellness and Fitness Centers, provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. The RFP, at sections M.2.5.2. and M.3, stated that proposals would be evaluated against the following factors and subfactors: (1) Technical Quality ([based on an] Oral Presentation and documentation) (A) Management Capability (B) Recruitment and Retention (including Compensation Plans, descriptions and Employee handbook) (C) Employee/Subcontractor Qualifications (2) Contractor Quality Control Plan (3) Past and Present Performance (4) Cost/Price The solicitation also provided that the contract would be awarded on the basis of the best value to the government, with price worth significantly less than nonprice factors in the award decision. RFP sec. M.2.5, M.3. Eleven offerors submitted proposals, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation team (TET). Each member of the team first assigned a numerical score between -10 and +10 to each proposal for each factor and subfactor. Agency Report, Oct. 2, 1998, at 3. The evaluators then reached a consensus score for each factor and subfactor, and a total score which was weighted based on the relative importance of the factors and subfactors. Following the evaluation, the proposals of Professional Performance Development Group (PPDG) and a second offeror were rated superior, with scores of 8.3 and 8.5, respectively, while Arora's proposal, with a score of 1.7, was rated acceptable. Contracting Officer's Statement, at 2 (submitted in connection with B-280978). The agency awarded the contract to PPDG after determining that its proposal represented the best value to the government. Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 4. Arora challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the technical quality and quality control factors, as well as the cost\technical tradeoff. When a protester challenges an agency's evaluation of its proposal, we will examine the evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. EBA Eng'g Inc., B-275818, Mar. 31, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 127 at 5. We find that the evaluation of Arora's proposal met this standard. TECHNICAL QUALITY Management Capability Under the management capability subfactor of technical quality, the evaluators criticized Arora's proposal because they found it did not provide a discussion of specific management techniques, tools and practices to ensure quality and timeliness of services, as specifically required by RFP sec. L.22, at L-22.[1] More specifically, the agency found that, while the proposal generally discussed how Arora's management practices were consistent with the American Nursing Association and Joint Commission and listed broad objectives (such as complete FOH mission support, delivery of responsive services, and achievement of client satisfaction), the proposal did not provide specific practices to achieve those objectives. TET Chairperson Statements, Nov. 10, 1998, at 1; Dec. 3, 1998, at 1. With respect to management techniques, the evaluators noted that Arora proposed an interdisciplinary quality team that would hold weekly teleconferences.