Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, B-292858.2; B-292858.5, April 7, 2004

Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, B-292858.2; B-292858.5, April 7, 2004 TITLE: Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, B-292858.2; B-292858.5, April 7, 2004 BNUMBER: B-292858.2; B-292858.5 DATE: April 7, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Hanford Environmental Health Foundation File: B-292858.2; B-292858.5 Date: April 7, 2004 Harold G. Bailey, Esq., Richard D. Gluck, Esq., and John A. Knab, Esq., Garvey Schubert Barer, for the protester. Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., Computer Sciences Corporation, the intervenor. Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Joseph A. Lenhard, Esq., and Paul R. Davis, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the awardee*s staffing plan provides for fewer personnel than will be required to perform the contract is denied where the agency reasonably considered the offerors* differing technical approaches while evaluating the proposed staffing plans and the protester*s assertion is based solely on a comparison of the total number of personnel it proposed to perform the contract to the total number of personnel proposed by the awardee. 2. In cost reimbursement contract, protest that agency should have upwardly adjusted the awardee*s proposed costs to account for the awardee*s proposal of a lower fringe benefit rate than the rate previously paid by the incumbent contractor is denied where the agency reasonably determined, among other things, that the awardee*s proposed fringe benefit rate was comparable to commercial rates in the region where the contract will be performed. DECISION Hanford Environmental Health Foundation (HEHF) protests the award of a contract to AdvanceMed Corp., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP06-03RL14383, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE), for occupational medical services. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued for occupational medical services to support the 11,000A personnel currently working on or near DOE*s Hanford site. The Hanford site consists of 586 square miles of land in southeastern Washington, and for almost 50A years *was dedicated to plutonium production for the nation*s nuclear arsenal.* Agency Report (AR) at 2. As a result of the plutonium production operations, Hanford has *become the nation*s largest environmental cleanup project.* Id. The personnel working at Hanford are exposed to *chemical and radiological hazards, as well as more typical construction-related hazards.* AR at 2. Given Hanford*s history and the resultant health risks to which personnel are exposed, the agency describes the occupational medical program as *an integral component of the Site*s safety management system and is critical for maintaining the health and safety of Hanford employees.* Id. The medical services to be provided under this RFP include, among other things, medical monitoring and qualification examinations, diagnosis and treatment of injury or illness, employee counseling and health promotion, field/facility visits, records and case management, and emergency and disaster preparedness. The contractor will be required to provide all personnel, facilities, equipment, materials, and supplies (with the exception of identified government resources) to perform the required occupational medical services. The RFP specified that *[t]he Contractor has the responsibility for total performance under this contract, including determining the specific methods for accomplishing the work effort, performing quality control, and assuming accountability for accomplishing the work under the contract.* RFP S C.2. The RFP explained that the resultant contract will *reflect[] the application of performance-based contracting approaches and techniques that emphasize results/outcomes and minimize *how-to* performance descriptions.* RFP S C.2. Consistent with this, the solicitation provided certain *[d]esired [o]utcomes* and *[d]esired [o]bjectives* for contract performance. RFP SS C.3, 4. For example, the RFP listed *[a] Hanford Site occupational medical program that is cost-effective and of good value to the DOE and the United States taxpayer* as one of the desired outcomes, and the provision of *occupational medical service processes and systems that are consistent with an efficient and effective operation* as one of the desired objectives. Id. The RFP provided for the award of a performance-based, cost-plus-award-fee service contract, with the fee to be based upon the agency*s evaluation of the contractor*s performance, as measured against specific evaluation criteria set forth in the contract. RFP SS B.3, F.1.