Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., B-285048.3; B-285048.4; B-285048.5; B-285048.6, January 22, 2001

Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., B-285048.3; B-285048.4; B-285048.5; B-285048.6, January 22, 2001 TITLE: Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., B-285048.3; B-285048.4; B-285048.5; B-285048.6, January 22, 2001 BNUMBER: B-285048.3; B-285048.4; B-285048.5; B-285048.6 DATE: January 22, 2001 ********************************************************************** Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., B-285048.3; B-285048.4; B-285048.5; B-285048.6, January 22, 2001 Decision Matter of: Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. File: B-285048.3; B-285048.4; B-285048.5; B-285048.6 Date: January 22, 2001 Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, Esq., for the protester. Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., and Karen D. Powell, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, for Hummer Whole Health Management, Inc., an intervenor. Merilee D. Rosenberg, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency determination that protester's proposal to hire incumbent contractor's employees to perform contract presented a risk to the agency was reasonable where protester did not furnish required letters of intent from proposed personnel, and protester proposed a lower salary and fewer benefits than the incumbent employer. 2. Best-value analysis was reasonable where agency fully considered the difference in awardee's and protester's proposed prices and determined that the additional benefits offered by the awardee were worth its higher price. DECISION Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Hummer Whole Health Management, Inc. under Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) request for proposals (RFP) No. 101-03-00, for the operation of a comprehensive program of occupational health and wellness for VA and other specified agencies. We deny the protest. The RFP, for a fixed-price requirements contract, contained two statements of work (SOW). The first addressed the majority of services, including treatment of occupational and non-occupational illnesses and injuries, an employee assistance program, and other additional services. The second described the services required to run the VA fitness facility. The RFP provided that offerors who first demonstrated that they had performed similar occupational health services during the past 5 years would be evaluated on a best-value basis under the factors past performance, oral presentation, organizational review and price. Past performance and the technical factors combined were worth significantly more than price in the award decision. With respect to price, offerors were required to propose (for a base period and each of four option periods) fully loaded hourly rates for designated labor categories, unit prices for optional medical services, and other direct costs. Four proposals were received and, following the initial evaluation, three, including Comprehensive's and Hummer's, were placed in the competitive range for discussion purposes. Competitive Range Determination (CRD) at 6. Following discussions and the submission and evaluation of final proposal revisions, Hummer's proposal was rated blue (exceptional) for its technical/past performance proposal, and Comprehensive's was rated green (acceptable). Hummer's evaluated price ($17,304,631.80) was the highest, and Comprehensive's ($15,314,544.90) the second highest. Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) at 9. VA performed a best value determination and concluded that Hummer's superior technical proposal offered benefits to the government that were worth its additional cost. Id. at 10-11; Best Value Determination (BVD) at 6-7. Accordingly, award was made to Hummer. Comprehensive challenges the evaluation and award decision on a number of grounds. We have reviewed the record and find Comprehensive's arguments to be without merit. We discuss Comprehensive's principal arguments below. EVALUATION Letters of Intent The primary issue raised concerns the evaluation of Comprehensive's proposal with respect to its proposed key personnel. In this regard, the solicitation required that the medical support services be provided by key personnel or, in their absence, by backup personnel. RFP at 36; RFP amend. No. 2 at question 5. Offerors were required to identify their key and backup personnel on "Proposed Key/Backup Personnel" forms, and to provide letters of intent from those persons. RFP at 74, attach. 4.