OMV Medical, Inc.; Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., B-281387; B

OMV Medical, Inc.; Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., B-281387; B BNUMBER: B-281387; B-281387.2; B-281387.3; B-281387.4 DATE: February 3, 1999 TITLE: OMV Medical, Inc.; Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., B-281387; B -281387.2; B-281387.3; B-281387.4, February 3, 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:OMV Medical, Inc.; Saratoga Medical Center, Inc. File: B-281387; B-281387.2; B-281387.3; B-281387.4 Date:February 3, 1999 Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Frank K. Peterson, Esq., Holland & Knight, for OMV Medical, Inc., and Norman J., Philion, Esq., Peter A. Greene, Esq., Edward V. Hickey, III, Esq., and Danielle E. Berry, Esq., Thompson, Hine & Flory, for Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., the protesters. Gary S. Pitchlynn, Esq., Pitchlynn, Morse, Ritter & Morse, for Choctaw Management/Services Enterprises, an intervenor. Clarence D. Long III, Esq., and Capt. 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. 4. Firm which submitted the third lowest priced proposal of six technically equal proposals is not an interested party to protest that the contracting agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal since, as provided by the solicitation, price properly was the determinative award factor, and the protester would not be in line for award if the allegation were sustained. DECISION OMV Medical, Inc. and Saratoga Medical Center, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Choctaw Management/Services Enterprises under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41622-98-R-0015, 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 the Continental United States (CONUS), Western region. Both protesters principally assert that the agency misevaluated Choctaw's past performance as warranting a low performance risk rating and also question the agency's determination that the awardee's proposed price is realistic. In addition, the protesters assert that the Air Force improperly made award on the basis of low price instead of on a best value basis, and OMV maintains that it was misled by the agency from lowering its professional compensation. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 7, 1998, called for offerors to provide qualified clinical social workers, United States licensed registered nurses, and family advocacy program staff personnel, as needed, specifying estimated quantities and locations for military bases in the CONUS Western region. RFP sec. B, C.1. 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 lowest 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.