FitNet International Corporation, B-291986, May 19, 2003

B-291986 May 19, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's determination to award a contract to a firm other than the protester is unobjectionable and does not evidence bad faith where the protester concedes that its proposal. Which was evaluated as "unsatisfactory" with "high risk" by the agency under the technical factor. Was "incomplete. Are significantly more important than price. Were received by the RFP's closing date. FitNet's proposal was evaluated as "unsatisfactory" with "high risk" under the technical factor. FitnessAge's proposal was evaluated as "good" with "moderate risk" under the technical factor. Written discussion questions were forwarded to the offerors. Responses to the written discussions were received and evaluated. View Decision FitNet International Corporation, B-291986, May 19, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION FitNet International Corporation protests the award of a contract to FitnessAge Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHA90-02-R-0018, issued by the National Guard Bureau, for a composite physiological fitness assessment program. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a set-aside for small businesses, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a "systematic program for the collection of fitness assessment data, a final individual fitness assessment summary and executive management reports." RFP at 11. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, based upon technical, past performance, and price evaluation factors. The solicitation informed offerors that "[n]on-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price," RFP at 1, and included an evaluation matrix listing numerous evaluation criteria to be considered by the agency in the technical and past performance evaluations. Four proposals, including FitNet's and FitnessAge's, were received by the RFP's closing date. FitNet's proposal was evaluated as "unsatisfactory" with "high risk" under the technical factor, and "very good" with "low risk" under the past performance factor, at a proposed price of $143,375. FitnessAge's proposal was evaluated as "good" with "moderate risk" under the technical factor, and "exceptional" with "low risk" under the past performance factor, at a price of $605,000. Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, Comparative Analysis Report, at 8. The contracting officer determined that each of the four proposals contained deficiencies and required clarifications, and included all in the competitive range. Written discussion questions were forwarded to the offerors, and responses to the written discussions were received and evaluated. The contracting officer determined that further discussions were necessary, and written discussion questions were forwarded to the offerors and oral discussions were conducted. Letters requesting final revised proposals (FRP) were next provided to the offerors, and FRPs were received from each of the competitive range offerors, except FitNet. The contracting officer contacted FitNet after the time for FRP submission had passed to ensure that FitNet's FRP had not been overlooked or misplaced. At this time, FitNet requested an extension in order to submit a FRP. FitNet's request for an extension was denied by the contracting officer. FitNet subsequently informed the contracting officer by electronic mail that it "wish[ed] to have [its] original proposal" considered. AR, Tab 14, E-mail from FitNet to Contracting Officer (Dec. 14, 2002). FitnessAge's FRP was evaluated as "excellent" with "low risk" under the technical factor, and "exceptional" with "low risk" under the past performance factor, at a proposed price of $605,000. AR, Tab 16, Comparative Analysis Report, at 8. The contracting officer determined, while considering FitNet's initial proposal as requested by FitNet (which had been rated "unsatisfactory" with "high risk" under the technical factor), that the proposal submitted by FitnessAge represented the best value to the government. Award was made to that firm, and after requesting and receiving a debriefing, FitNet filed this protest. FitNet protests that the specifications pertaining to the measurement of physiological age "were specific in every detail to the winning bidder's . . . patent," and therefore improper. Protester's Comments at 2. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests. They specifically require that a protest based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals must be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (2003). Our timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement process. Dominion Aviation, Inc.--Recon., B-275419.4, Feb.