Aerotek Scientific LLC, B-293089, January 23, 2004

B-293089 Jan 23, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Low priced quotation was determined to represent the best value to the government and where the protester. Whose quotation was higher priced. Failed to demonstrate how it was prejudiced by some flaws in the agency's technical evaluation. While there were some flaws in the agency's technical evaluation. Aerotek failed to demonstrate prejudice. /2/ The RFQ was issued on September 5. The RFQ stated that the agency would issue the BPA to the responsible vendor whose quotation was determined most advantageous to the government. Which were worth a maximum of 96 points. Were listed in descending order of importance as follows: (1) past performance. (The RFQ defined these availability rates as the percentage of time that required positions were staffed.). View Decision Aerotek Scientific LLC, B-293089, January 23, 2004 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Aerotek Scientific LLC protests the issuance of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Top Echelon Contracting, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. M8-Q11-03, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for non-personal staffing services for the Dallas Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP) /1/ facility in Lancaster, Texas. Aerotek, which submitted a higher priced quotation than Top Echelon, challenges the VA's evaluation of quotations. We deny the protest because, while there were some flaws in the agency's technical evaluation, Aerotek failed to demonstrate prejudice. /2/ The RFQ was issued on September 5, 2003 to contractors with current Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts that covered licensed pharmacists, national certified pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy aides. The RFQ stated that the agency would issue the BPA to the responsible vendor whose quotation was determined most advantageous to the government, considering technical evaluation factors, past performance, and price. The technical evaluation factors, which were worth a maximum of 96 points, were listed in descending order of importance as follows: (1) past performance; (2)management (staff recruitment, retention, and management; replacement plan; staff scheduling; and quality assurance); and (3)corporate experience (key onsite management personnel; corporate resources; and cost management). /3/ With respect to past performance, the RFQ required a vendor to provide a list of companies and contracts under which the firm has provided comparable staffing services within the past 3 years. Among other things, the RFQ required the vendor to list the number of "medical personnel" provided by classification, e.g., "pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, pharmacy aides, etcetera." RFQ at 9. With respect to management and corporate experience, the RFQ required onsite management personnel to be available 100 percent of the time and pharmacy staff to be available 97 percent of the time. (The RFQ defined these availability rates as the percentage of time that required positions were staffed.) The RFQ required a vendor to disclose its employee availability rates for the last 3 fiscal years. The RFQ also required a vendor to list past availability rates, "showing both the required and achieved rates," for similar projects. Id. at 9. The RFQ required a vendor to provide resumes for its proposed onsite management personnel. In this regard, the RFQ required the vendor to provide two onsite project managers (one per shift); the individuals proposed for these onsite management positions were required to have 5 years of human resources experience and 3 years of supervisory experience. The RFQ further required a vendor to provide a replacement plan for onsite management personnel in the event that the onsite managers were absent from their jobs for any reason. In addition, a vendor's past performance, based on information reported by references, would be evaluated under a separate past performance evaluation factor that was worth a maximum of 75 points. Finally, with respect to price, which was worth a maximum of 57 points, /4/ amendment No. 5 to the RFQ required a vendor to provide fixed discount percentages from the corresponding unit prices in its FSS contract. A vendor's proposed discount would be applied to the FSS contract unit price to arrive at a unit price for each RFQ line item and then this unit price would be multiplied by the estimated quantity for each RFQ line item. A vendor's total price would be calculated by adding all discounted unit prices together. The RFQ stated that in determining the quotation most advantageous to the government, the technical evaluation factors, including past performance, would be considered significantly more important than price.