Gray Personnel Services, Inc., B-285002; B-285002.2, June 26, 2000

Gray Personnel Services, Inc., B-285002; B-285002.2, June 26, 2000 TITLE: Gray Personnel Services, Inc., B-285002; B-285002.2, June 26, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285002; B-285002.2 DATE: June 26, 2000 ********************************************************************** Gray Personnel Services, Inc., B-285002; B-285002.2, June 26, 2000 Decision Matter of: Gray Personnel Services, Inc. File: B-285002; B-285002.2 Date: June 26, 2000 Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., and Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, for the protester. Cpt. David J. Goetz and Col. Nicholas P. Retson, Department of the Army, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's past performance evaluation is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. DECISION Gray Personnel Services, Inc. protests the Army's award of a contract to RGB Group, Inc. pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DADA15-99-R-0023. The protester alleges that the Army misevaluated proposals on past performance. We deny the protest. Issued on August 16, 1999, by the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), the RFP solicited offerors for providing health care services at Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center, Fort Meade, Maryland, and at two other locations. RFP amend. 2, sect. C.1. The RFP contemplated award of an indefinite-quantity contract (for a basic period of 6 months, with options for 4 additional years), under which the contractor would provide, on the basis of fixed per-hour prices, the health care services of a number of different types of health care professionals. RFP at 47; RFP amend. 2, at 2-54. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose offer was the most advantageous to the government after consideration of price and other factors. RFP at 49. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on three factors: past performance, technical (including contract administration and recruiting qualified personnel subfactors), and price. Id. The RFP explained that past performance was significantly more important than technical and that the two technical subfactors were equal in importance and, when combined, were more important than price. Id. The RFP advised that it was highly likely that the contract would be awarded on the basis of initial proposals. RFP amend. 2, at 1. Concerning past performance, offerors were required to submit information, including references, on contracts performed within the past 3 years, which were similar in scope and complexity to the present requirement. The RFP stated that past performance would be evaluated on the offeror's ability to comply with contract terms and conditions, provide quality service/personnel, maintain schedules, and exercise management control. RFP at 45. The RFP stated that past performance would not be numerically rated, but would be evaluated for risk (i.e., probability of success) and briefly defined the three possible ratings (i.e., "high," "medium," or "low" risk) that the agency would assign a proposal after evaluating an offeror's past performance. Id. at 49-50. [Deleted] offers were received and evaluated, and [deleted] were found technically acceptable. The evaluations of RGB's and Gray's proposals are summarized as follows: Offeror Past Performance Technical Score/ Total Price (Risk) Qualitative Rating RGB Low [deleted] $14,932,722 Gray Medium [deleted] $[deleted] Agency Report, Tab K, Negotiation Memorandum, at 8. Based upon RGB's low past performance risk, [deleted] technical rating, and lowest total price, the contracting officer determined that it was in the best interest of the government to award the contract, without conducting discussions, to RGB. Id. at 8-10. Accordingly, the contract was awarded to RGB. After a debriefing, Gray protested. The protester contends that it was unreasonably downgraded on past performance based solely upon a negative comment made by a WRAMC contract administrator concerning Gray's low "fill rate"--i.e., ability to provide nursing staff when requested--under a prior contract. Gray asserts that there is nothing in the instant RFP that states that "fill rates" under prior contracts will be evaluated. Gray also asserts that there was a [deleted] in the Washington, D.C. area; that the number [deleted] that it was required to provide had [deleted] over the life of that contract; and that it was unable to provide [deleted] as requested by WRAMC. Thus, Gray contends that its "fill rate" was excellent "under the circumstances," and therefore it should have been given a better risk rating on the past performance evaluation.