The Arora Group, Inc., B-288127, September 14, 2001

B-288127 Sep 14, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights In a negotiated procurement in which award was made to the offer representing the best value to the government. A protester is an interested party under the General Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations to protest the award and evaluation of proposals. Even where the protester's offer is ranked fifth of seven offers. If its protest were sustained. Terms incorporated into solicitation for designing outpatient clinics are latently ambiguous and resulted in unequal competition where the record shows that offerors prepared their proposals based on different. BACKGROUND Fort Belvoir's DeWitt Army Community Hospital is the central facility of a comprehensive health care system serving active duty and retired military personnel and beneficiaries in the Northern Virginia area. View Decision The Arora Group, Inc., B-288127, September 14, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Arora Group, Inc. (TAG) protests the award of a contract to CRAssociates, Inc. (CRA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DADA10-00-R-0056, issued by the Department of the Army to operate two primary outpatient care clinics supporting the DeWitt Army Community Hospital, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The protester primarily argues that the agency failed to consider whether proposals met a solicitation provision establishing mandatory minimum room sizes for offices and various other areas of the facilities. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND Fort Belvoir's DeWitt Army Community Hospital is the central facility of a comprehensive health care system serving active duty and retired military personnel and beneficiaries in the Northern Virginia area. In addition to the central facility, DeWitt operates four community-based primary care clinics. These centers provide a wide array of routine and acute care, including radiology, laboratory, immunization, and pharmacy services. The RFP at issue here is for operating two of these centers in Virginia, one in Woodbridge, the other in Fairfax/Burke. The agency issued the RFP on December 13, 2000, as a total small business set-aside, contemplating the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base period with up to four 1-year options. For each contract period, offerors were required to submit unit and extended prices for providing various services at each of the two facilities, and a total price. Offerors were to submit written proposals in six separate volumes covering the following areas: administrative; facility drawings and service procedures; past/present performance questionnaire; contractor quality control plan; cost/price; and financial capability. RFP amend. No. 1, Sec. L at L-1. In addition to written proposals, offerors were required to make an oral presentation. Id. at L.5-L.8. The RFP stated that proposals were to be evaluated in three general areas--technical, price, and past/present performance. Under the technical area, proposals were to be evaluated by applying three factors--management, approach to satisfying requirements, and quality control--each worth 30 points, for a total maximum score of 90 points. Within each factor, the RFP listed subfactors as shown below (percentage weights for each subfactor shown in parentheses were not provided in the RFP): A. Management 1. Management Capabilities [DELETED] 2. Recruitment [DELETED] 3. Employee/Subcontractor Qualifications [DELETED] 4. Employee relations [DELETED] 5. Retention [DELETED] 6. Training [DELETED] A. Approach to Satisfying Requirements B. Site Location [DELETED] Clinic Design/Facilities/Equipment [DELETED] Radiology Services [DELETED] Laboratory Services [DELETED] Wellness Services [DELETED] Appointment Services [DELETED] Nurse Triage Services [DELETED] C. Quality Control /1/ Identification/Documentation of Problems Resolution/Prevention of Problems Id. at M.2-M.3. In addition to factors A, B, and C, the RFP listed past/present performance and performance risk, financial capability, and price as factors D, E, and F, respectively. The RFP stated that technical factors A, B, and C would be numerically scored, and factors D and E would be evaluated for performance risk. /2/ The RFP further explained that technical factors A, B, and C were of equal importance and combined were more important than price, which was more important that factors D (past/present performance) and E (financial capability). Id. Sec. M.2. Price was to be evaluated for realism and adequacy. Id. Sec. M.6. The RFP stated that "to be considered for award, an offeror must be determined to be acceptable in the technical portion" of the solicitation. Id. Amend. No. 1, Sec. M.2. Award was to be made on the basis of the proposal deemed to represent the "best overall value" for the government. Id. Sec.