Innovative Management, Inc., B-292818; B-292818.2, November 7, 2003

Innovative Management, Inc., B-292818; B-292818.2, November 7, 2003 TITLE: Innovative Management, Inc., B-292818; B-292818.2, November 7, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292818; B-292818.2 DATE: November 7, 2003 ********************************************************************** Innovative Management, Inc., B-292818; B-292818.2, November 7, 2003 Decision Matter of: Innovative Management, Inc. File: B-292818; B-292818.2 Date: November 7, 2003 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Law Offices of Theodore M. Bailey, for the protester. Glen C. Etelson, Esq., and Deborah L. Moran, Esq., Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A. and Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for Choctaw Management/Services Enterprise, an intervenor. Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., and David M. Hill, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In past performance confidence assessment, where relevance of offerors* performance was the primary basis for the rating, agency reasonably evaluated awardee*s performance record--with more relevant contracts--superior to the protester*s despite offerors* similar records of very good to excellent performance on their respective contracts. 2. In evaluation of awardee*s proposed professional compensation plan, where agency considered that awardee*s labor rates were lower than those paid under current contract, but determined that overall compensation plan, including some benefits not enjoyed by current employees, was comparable to that of the current contractor, agency reasonably evaluated awardee*s plan favorably under requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation S: 52.222-46. DECISION Innovative Management, Inc. (IMI) protests the award of a contract to Choctaw Management/Services Enterprise (CMSE) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41622-03-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for Family Advocacy Program (FAP) services. IMI challenges the evaluation and award determination. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside for personal services to supplement the FAP staff at Air Force medical treatment facilities in the eastern continental United States. The FAP*s mission is to prevent and treat child and spousal abuse utilizing qualified, masters-level clinical social workers, U.S.-licensed registered nurses, and other FAP staff personnel. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-rate, labor hours contract for a base year with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated under four factors: mission capability, past performance, proposal risk, and price, with the non-price factors combined significantly more important than price. The mission capability and proposal risk factors were further divided into the following subfactors: corporate experience; recruitment/retention plan; and management. Proposals were to be rated under the technical factors and subfactors as blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable. Proposal risk was to be evaluated as high, moderate, or low. Past performance information was to be evaluated on the basis of relevance--very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant--and based on this evaluation, the agency was to make an overall confidence assessment--high confidence, significant confidence, confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, little confidence, or no confidence. Award was to be made on a *best value* basis. Five firms, including IMI and CMSE, submitted proposals. After review of the proposals, the agency decided to award the contract on the basis of initial proposals without discussions. The final evaluations for IMI and CMSE were as follows: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | |IMI |CMSE | |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------| | Mission Capability | | | |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------| | Corporate Experience/Risk |Blue/Low |Blue/Low | |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------| | Recruitment/Retention Plan/ Risk |Green/Low |Green/Low | |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------| | Management/Risk |Blue/Low |Blue/Low | |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------| | Past Performance |Signif.