Medical Information Services, B-287824, July 10, 2001

B-287824 Jul 10, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Challenge to the evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where the record shows that the technical evaluation board (TEB) evaluated the proposal in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation and the record supports the TEB's conclusions. 2. Personnel qualifications is not a matter of responsibility subject to the Small Business Administration's certificate of competency procedures. Offerors were required to submit unit and extended prices for transcribing estimated quantities of seven different types of medical reports (e.g. Were not provided in the RFP): technical capabilities (20). Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government. View Decision Medical Information Services, B-287824, July 10, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Medical Information Services (MIS) protests the award of a contract to Information & Professional Management Group (IPMG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 261-0077-01, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for medical transcription services for the VA's Sierra Nevada Health Care System (Reno). MIS contends that the VA improperly rejected its proposal and challenges the award to IPMG on several grounds. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on January 17, 2001 as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with up to four 1-year options. Offerors were required to submit unit and extended prices for transcribing estimated quantities of seven different types of medical reports (e.g., discharge summaries, examinations, operation reports/procedures, and consultation progress). The RFP listed the following evaluation factors (maximum point values for each, shown in parentheses, were not provided in the RFP): technical capabilities (20), past performance (10), "experiences" (20), and price (50), for a maximum combined possible score of 100 points. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government. Twelve firms, including MIS and IPMG, responded to the RFP by the time set on March 2 for receipt of proposals. Each member of a technical evaluation board (TEB) evaluated proposals by assigning numerical ratings under each of the technical evaluation factors, and an average total score. The contracting officer (CO) separately evaluated prices by assigning the maximum number of points available for price to the lowest priced proposal, and proportionately lower scores to higher prices. Following that initial evaluation, the CO provided all offerors with an opportunity to revise their prices. In response to an inquiry regarding this request, the CO explained to MIS that the VA had not excluded any proposal from consideration at that time, and that all offerors were being provided with an opportunity to revise their prices. The table below shows the overall ranking of all offerors' proposals based on combined technical and price scores. . Price/Score Tech. Total IPMG $645,990/46.23 49.00 95.23 A 774,777/38.55 48.67 87.22 B 635,812/46.97 37.00 83.97 C 688,350/43.39 39.67 83.06 D 645,495/46.27 36.33 82.60 E 942,808/31.68 47.00 78.68 F 732,314/40.78 36.67 77.45 G 678,400/44.02 33.33 77.35 H 864,470/34.55 36.00 70.55 MIS 597,308/50.00 10.67 60.67 I 805,936/37.06 12.00 49.06 J 1,135,068/26.31 13.33 39.64 Agency Report (AR) exh. 13. In its report to the CO, the TEB pointed out that IPMG's technical proposal had earned the highest technical score. The evaluators noted that IPMG had been in business for more than 5 years providing similar services to several VA hospitals and to the Department of Defense. The TEB found that IPMG had demonstrated that it is the best qualified firm to perform the required services and recommended award to IPMG. The CO determined that IPMG's price was reasonable, accepted the TEB's recommendation, and awarded the contract to that firm on April 9. Upon learning of the award, MIS requested a debriefing. In her written debriefing, the CO informed MIS that the RFP specified "a contractor-owned digital dictation system located at the contractor's office, and did not include [MIS's proposed] technology . . . ." AR exh. 20, Debriefing Letter to MIS, Apr. 13, 2001. The CO further pointed out that the VA had not established a competitive range, and that all offerors had been given an opportunity to revise their prices. This protest followed an agency-level protest which the agency now concedes was improperly dismissed as untimely filed. MIS challenges the evaluation and rejection of its proposal. The protester primarily asserts that MIS's proposed technology complies with the RFP's requirement for a contractor-owned digital dictation system.