Mindleaf Technologies, Inc., B-294242, B-294242.2, August 24, 2004

Mindleaf Technologies, Inc., B-294242, B-294242.2, August 24, 2004 TITLE: Mindleaf Technologies, Inc., B-294242, B-294242.2, August 24, 2004 BNUMBER: B-294242, B-294242.2 DATE: August 24, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Mindleaf Technologies, Inc. File: B-294242, B-294242.2 Date: August 24, 2004 Paresh K. Shah for the protester. Clarence D. Long III, Esq., and Capt. David W. Armstrong, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and William J. Grimaldi, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for KMR, LLC, an intervenor. Matthew T. Crosby and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably determined that awardee*s proposal price was not unrealistically low where awardee*s price was in line with the prices of two other competitive proposals. DECISION Mindleaf Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to KMR, LLC under request for proposals FA2823-04-R-0009, issued by the Department of the Air Force for operation of central appointments and referral centers for healthcare services at Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field, Florida. Mindleaf challenges the reasonableness of the agency*s price analysis and performance risk determinations, and alleges that it suffered a competitive disadvantage due to disclosure of the firm*s pricing information. We deny the protest. On August 1, 2003, the Air Force issued a request for quotations (RFQ) for centralized appointment and referral services (CA/RS) for military healthcare facilities at Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field, Florida. The RFQ, issued as a small business set aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to a Federal Supply Schedule vendor in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 8.4. The selected vendor was to operate a number of call centers and appointment desks, including the Centralized Appointment Call Center (CACC), Referral Management Center, Primary Care Manager by Name Desk, Tricare Plus Enrollment Center, and several health clinic appointment desks that were to be operated like the CACC. Following receipt of quotations and subsequent evaluation, the Air Force awarded Mindleaf a task order contract. Following that award, KMR, the incumbent contractor, filed a protest with our Office challenging the reasonableness of the Air Force*s evaluation of past performance and its best value determination. We sustained KMR*s protest on the basis that the past performance rating that the Air Force assigned Mindleaf was based on experience that was not relevant under the RFQ*s past performance criteria. KMR, LLC, B-292860, Dec.A 22, 2003, 2003 CPD P 233. We recommended that the agency reevaluate the vendors under the RFQ*s stated past performance evaluation criteria and perform a new best value determination. The Air Force subsequently determined that its requirements had changed and that the solicitation*s evaluation criteria needed to be modified. Thus, on April 20, 2004, the Air Force resolicited the Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field CA/RS requirement in a request for proposals (RFP). The RFP, issued as a small business set aside, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract in accordance with FAR PartA 15. In addition to two base contract line item numbers (CLIN) that mirrored the CA/RS requirements contained in the original solicitation, the RFP added two option CLINs related to benchmarking criteria.[1] The RFP stated that for price evaluation purposes, the base and option CLINs would be added together. The RFP also stated that the agency would make award to the offeror representing the best value based on three factors: mission capability, past performance, and price. For evaluation purposes, mission capability and past performance, when combined, were approximately equal when compared to price. The RFP also stated that unrealistically low proposed costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unrealistic proposal. RFP at 21. Eight proposals were received in response to the RFP. Both KMR and Mindleaf submitted proposals and received passing ratings for mission capability and exceptional/highly-relevant ratings for past performance. Agency Report (AR), TabA 11, Price Competition Memorandum, attach. 3, Proposal Evaluations. KMR*s proposed price was $4,080,936.00 while Mindleaf*s was $5,171,045.59. Id., attach. 2, Revised Comparison of Pricing. On June 10, 2004, the Air Force selected KMR for award.