CliniComp, International, B-294059; B-294059.2, July 26, 2004

CliniComp, International, B-294059; B-294059.2, July 26, 2004 TITLE: CliniComp, International, B-294059; B-294059.2, July 26, 2004 BNUMBER: B-294059; B-294059.2 DATE: July 26, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: CliniComp, International File: B-294059; B-294059.2 Date: July 26, 2004 L. James D*Agostino, Esq., Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., David T. Hickey, Esq., and Natalia W. Geren, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, for the protester. Judith A. Bonner, Esq., General Services Administtration, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester*s contention that its proposal was improperly excluded from the competitive range is denied where the decision to exclude the proposal from further consideration was based on findings that the proposal was technically unacceptable, and where the protester has not shown that those findings were unreasonable or inconsistent with stated evaluation criteria. DECISION CliniComp, International (CCI) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS03T03R0022, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for commercial off-the-shelf pharmacy software (abbreviated in the record as RxCOTS) for the Department of Defense*s (DOD) TRICARE Management Activity, with separate options for purchase by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the United States Coast Guard. CCI argues that its exclusion from the competitive range was improper because the agency reached unreasonable conclusions about several technical issues, misevaluated its past performance, and gave an unfair competitive advantage to a company that had participated in an earlier feasibility study. We deny the protest. The RFP here was issued on November 12, 2003, and sought offers of commercial off-the-shelf software to be integrated with an existing TRICARE medical software system called the Composite Health Care System II (CHCS II), which currently provides pharmacy capabilities for DOD. DOD and GSA anticipate that the RxCOTS product purchased here will provide a single pharmacy system for all of DOD that will replace the multiple stand-alone systems currently in operation. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, for a 1-year base period followed by up to nine 1-year options, to the offeror whose proposal presents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the stated factors. RFP, amend. 6, at 130. The stated technical evaluation factors were: technical approach, past performance, management approach, corporate experience, and personnel resources. The combined technical evaluation factors were considered *significantly more important than price.* Id. at 131. Four firms, including the protester, submitted proposals by the due date of January 26, 2004, and all four proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation team (TET). At the conclusion of the initial evaluation, the TET provided, by letter dated March 9, a nine-page analysis of perceived weaknesses or deficiencies in CCI*s proposal; this analysis identified 42 separate areas where the proposal either lacked sufficient information, or was unacceptable as written. Agency Report (AR), Tab 12. On March 17 and 19, the agency conducted negotiations with CCI, and the company was invited to submit a revised proposal, which it did on March 26. Upon evaluation of CCI*s revised proposal, the agency concluded that the proposal remained unacceptable in three technical areas, as well as in the area of past performance, and offered an extremely high price in comparison with other offers. By letter dated April 29, GSA advised CCI that its proposal was being excluded from the competitive range. AR, Tab 21. This protest followed. In challenging its exclusion from the competitive range, CCI argues that the agency reached unreasonable conclusions about its technical approach and past performance, and contends that the agency provided an unfair competitive advantage to an offeror who had participated in an earlier feasibility study. The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is principally a matter within the reasonable exercise of discretion of the procuring agency. In reviewing an agency*s evaluation of proposals and subsequent competitive range determination, we will not evaluate the proposals anew in order to make our own determination as to their acceptability or relative merits; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the documented evaluation was fair, reasonable, and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Ervin & Assocs., Inc., B-280993, Dec.A 17,A 1998, 98-2 CPD P 151 at 3.