OMV Medical, Inc., B-281490, February 16, 1999

B-281490 Feb 16, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably eliminated the protester's revised proposal from the competitive range after conducting discussions where the protester failed to demonstrate past performance in providing registered nurses as required by the terms of the amended solicitation and its low price indicated the firm could have problems recruiting and retaining registered nurses. OMV challenges the agency's determination that its revised proposal was not considered among the most highly rated and it questions the evaluation of the awardees' proposals. The contractor was required to provide RN services for the following groups of hospital units: Group A. Including specific information regarding the wards in which the RN services were provided. View Decision Matter of: OMV Medical, Inc. File: B-281490 Date: February 16, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION OMV Medical, Inc. protests the elimination of its revised proposal from the competitive range and the award of contracts to Maryland Professional Staffing Services, Inc. (MPSS) and American Health Research Institute (AHRI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62645-97-R-0016, issued by the Department of the Navy to provide registered nurses (RN) to the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC), Bethesda, Maryland. OMV challenges the agency's determination that its revised proposal was not considered among the most highly rated and it questions the evaluation of the awardees' proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on April 14, 1998 as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, personnel services contract. RFP Cover Sheet; RFP Sec. L.3, at 70. The contractor was required to provide RN services for the following groups of hospital units: Group A--intensive care unit (ICU), post anesthesia care unit (PACU), and operating room (OR); Group B--neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and mother and infant care center (MICC); and Group C--medical surgical, ambulatory care clinic (ACC), and ambulatory procedure unit (APU). The RFP provided that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal offered the best combination of past performance and price, RFP Sec. M.2, at 77, with past performance being considered significantly more important than price. Id. To evaluate an offeror's past performance, the RFP required offerors to "submit a narrative discussion which demonstrates directly related or similar experience in providing Registered Nurse services." RFP Sec. M.3.1, at 77. The RFP defined "directly related or similar experience" as "experience in providing registered nurse services of similar or same quantity in an emergency medicine, medical surgical, or critical care environment." Id. at 78. The RFP required, among other things, the offeror to provide in its past performance narrative a detailed description of work performed, including specific information regarding the wards in which the RN services were provided, the various shifts provided, and the number of RNs provided. The offeror also was required to provide the name and phone number of a point of contact where particular contracts were performed. Id. The RFP also advised offerors that proposed prices would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and realism. RFP Sec. M.3.2, at 79-80. As relevant to this protest, the RFP stated that an offeror's line item prices would be evaluated for realism "to identify unusually low cost estimates, understatements of costs, inconsistent pricing patterns, potential misunderstandings of the solicitation's requirements, and the risk of personnel recruitment and retention problems during contract performance." Id. at 80. Offerors were required to provide unit and extended prices for a specified number of line item shifts for RN services in Groups A, B, and/or C, as referenced above. Amendment No. 0001, May 6, 1998, Sec. B.4, at 3. As amended, the RFP now provided for the possibility of multiple awards based on groups of RN services. Amendment No. 0001, Sec. M.2, at 77. Eight firms, including OMV, MPSS, and AHRI, submitted proposals by the initial closing time on May 26. OMV and AHRI submitted proposals for Groups A, B, and C, and MPSS submitted a proposal for Groups A and B. Technical evaluations were performed by the agency's source selection evaluation board (SSEB). As relevant to this protest, the SSEB assigned "marginal" ratings to the technical proposals submitted by OMV and MPSS and a "good" rating to AHRI's proposal. /1/ Initial Technical Evaluation Report, June 18, 1998, at 6.