OMV Medical, Inc.; Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., B-281388; B

OMV Medical, Inc.; Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., B-281388; B BNUMBER: B-281388; B-281388.2; B-281388.3 DATE: February 3, 1999 TITLE: OMV Medical, Inc.; Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., B-281388; B -281388.2; B-281388.3, 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-281388; B-281388.2; B-281388.3 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. Jonathan M. Bailey, Esq., for Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., 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. 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 compared favorably with other offerors and with the current average annual salary standard. 2. Agency did not relax solicitation's adequate compensation requirements and did not misleadingly cause offeror to maintain (rather than lower) its proposed professional compensation, where the agency was consistent in the concerns it raised with offerors about professional compensation, and made award to an offeror whose professional compensation compared favorably with the current average salary standard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, and was actually higher than the protester's. 3. Firms which offered the third and fourth lowest prices of six technically equal proposals are not interested parties to protest that the contracting agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal since, as provided by the solicitation, price properly was the determinative factor for award and the protesters 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 Professional Performance Development Group, Inc. (PPDG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41622-98-R-0017, 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 in the Continental United States (CONUS), Eastern region. Both protesters principally assert that the agency failed to adhere to the RFP's announced evaluation standard, relaxed the RFP's adequate compensation requirements, failed to meaningfully evaluate price realism and misled them into failing to reduce their proposed professional compensation. The protesters also contend that the Air Force engaged in prejudicially unequal discussions with certain offerors. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued July 7, 1998, called for offerors to provide 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 the CONUS Eastern region. RFP sec. B. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with four 1-year 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.