Kathpal Technologies, Inc., B-291637.2, April 10, 2003

B-291637.2 Apr 10, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Evaluation of protester's past performance at level below highest possible ratings under the applicable criteria was unobjectionable where record establishes that agency followed stated evaluation criteria and rating had a reasonable basis. Proposals were to be evaluated under three factors. Was to be rated as outstanding. Or marginal. /2/ Proposed costs were to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Non-cost factors were considered significantly more important than cost and awards were to be made to the offerors whose proposals were evaluated as providing the best value to the government. Were received and were evaluated by a technical evaluation panel. Were as follows: . The agency took corrective action in the form of identifying which task orders were associated with the challenged comments and provided KTI the opportunity to submit additional information. View Decision Kathpal Technologies, Inc., B-291637.2, April 10, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Kathpal Technologies, Inc. (KTI) protests the failure to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. CMS-02-0003 issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, for consulting services. KTI challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal under the past performance factor. /1/ We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to provide a broad range of consulting services to support CMS and its 10 regional offices in the areas of analyzing management or operating processes, analyzing Medicare/Medicaid issues, researching alternatives, providing objective findings, and making concrete recommendations. The RFP contemplated multiple awards of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a base year, with four 1-year options. Task orders under the contracts would be awarded under a variety of pricing schemes, including fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and time and materials. Proposals were to be evaluated under three factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical proposal, small disadvantaged business (SDB) utilization plan, and business (cost) proposal. The technical proposal, evaluated under two equally weighted factors--past performance and management plan--was to be rated as outstanding, better, acceptable, or marginal. /2/ Proposed costs were to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Non-cost factors were considered significantly more important than cost and awards were to be made to the offerors whose proposals were evaluated as providing the best value to the government. Twenty-nine proposals, including KTI's, were received and were evaluated by a technical evaluation panel. The final evaluation results for the eight awardees and KTI, in order of technical merit, were as follows: . Technical SDB Plan Business Eval'd Cost Booz Allen Outstanding Signif. Yellow $753.34 . Credit AdminiStar Outstanding Credit Yellow $548.36 Peterson Better Credit Yellow $1,053.46 RTI Better Signif. Green $746.99 . Credit CNA Better Signif. Green $794.69 . Credit AdvanceMed Better Credit Green $601.86 Iowa Foundation Better Credit Yellow $655.96/722.02 IPRO Better Credit Yellow $809.32 Other Offerors /3/ KTI Acceptable Signif. Green $568.07 . Credit The contracting officer determined that awarding contracts to the top eight offerors would best meet CMS's needs, given the amount of work anticipated and the relative quality of the proposals. After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, KTI filed a protest with our Office in November 2002. KTI asserted that the agency had improperly failed to provide it an opportunity to respond to allegedly negative comments made by its past performance references. The agency took corrective action in the form of identifying which task orders were associated with the challenged comments and provided KTI the opportunity to submit additional information. KTI then withdrew the protest. The agency re-evaluated KTI's past performance and the contracting officer determined that no change in its rating of acceptable under this factor was warranted. After KTI received notice of the agency's decision, it filed this protest. /4/ PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION KTI maintains that the agency's past performance evaluation was flawed because it was based on references' negative comments made long after some of the task orders to which they related had been performed.