Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., B-281350; B-281350.2, January

Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., B-281350; B-281350.2, January BNUMBER: B-281350; B-281350.2 DATE: January 27, 1999 TITLE: Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., B-281350; B-281350.2, 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:Saratoga Medical Center, Inc. File: B-281350; B-281350.2 Date:January 27, 1999 Norman J. Philion, Esq., Peter A. Greene, Esq., Edward V. Hickey III, Esq., and Danielle E. Berry, Esq., Thompson Hine & Flory, for the protester. Gary S. Pitchlynn, Esq., Pitchlynn, Morse, Ritter & Morse, for Choctaw Management/Services Enterprise, an intervenor. Clarence D. Long III, Esq., and Captain David A. Whiteford, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably evaluated awardee's proposal as posing a low performance risk based upon favorable reference information received concerning performance under relevant contracts. 2. Allegation that agency misevaluated awardee's proposal with respect to past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the applicable stated evaluation factors. 3. Determination to select lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal for award of contract, and determination that the awardee's prices were realistic are unobjectionable where both determinations were made in a manner consistent with the evaluation criteria, and the awardee's professional compensation plan and base salaries (which were higher than the protester's) reasonably were deemed adequate to recruit and retain employees. DECISION Saratoga Medical Center, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Choctaw Management/Services Enterprise under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41622-98-R-0014, a competitive small disadvantaged business set-aside, issued by the Department of the Air Force to acquire clinical social services under the Family Advocacy Program (FAP) for Air Force personnel and their families at various locations in Europe, the Azores and Turkey. Saratoga principally asserts that the agency misevaluated Choctaw's past performance as warranting a low performance risk rating and also questions the agency's determination that the awardee's proposed price is realistic. We deny the protests. The RFP, issued on May 6, 1998, called for offerors to provide Family Advocacy Clinical Directors, Family Advocacy Treatment Managers, Family Advocacy Outreach Managers, Family Advocacy Nurse Specialists, and Family Advocacy Program Assistants, as needed, specifying estimated quantities and locations for military bases in Europe, the Azores and Turkey. RFP sec. B. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with four 1-year ordering period options and stated that the agency would employ performance/price tradeoff techniques to make a best value award decision. RFP sec. M.4.a. The RFP went on to state that, if the technically acceptable offeror submitting the proposal with the lowest evaluated price received a low performance risk rating and was found responsible, that proposal would represent the "best value." RFP sec. M.4.b.4. The RFP provided that award could be made to other than the offeror that submitted the low-priced, technically acceptable proposal if that offeror was "judged to have a moderate, high or not applicable performance risk rating." RFP sec. M.4.b.5. Concerning past performance, the RFP stated that a performance risk assessment would be conducted and required offerors to submit information on relevant contracts performed within the last 3 years which demonstrate their ability to perform the proposed effort.[1] RFP sec. L.901, Vol. IIIa. The RFP further provided for an evaluation of the price proposals for realism. RFP sec. M.2. On June 8, 1998, the agency received six proposals. Between June 11 and 15, offerors gave oral presentations of their technical proposals. The proposal of one offeror did not address the minimum technical requirements and was rejected. All other proposals were determined to be technically acceptable. Clarification requests were issued to the offerors that had submitted acceptable proposals and they were instructed to address the clarification requests along with amendment No. 0005, issued August 12, which added a contract line item for the travel lodging allowance and for overseas employee taxes. Final proposal revisions were received on August 21.