The OMO Group, Inc., B-294328, October 19, 2004

B-294328 Oct 19, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The OMO Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to RehabPlus Group, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8901-04-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Air Force for Family Advocacy Program (FAP) services. OMO challenges the Air Forces evaluation and award determination. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294328, The OMO Group, Inc., October 19, 2004 Decision Matter of: The OMO Group, Inc. File: B-294328 Date: October 19, 2004 Garreth E. Shaw, Esq., The Shaw Law Firm, for the protester. Susan L. Schor, Esq., McManus, Schor, Asmar & Darden, for RehabPlus Group, Inc., an intervenor. Clarence D. Long III, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation required the submission of an average vacancy fill rate in order to evaluate a firms ability to address personnel turnover in a timely manner, the agency reasonably calculated the awardees rate using reported vacancies for positions that were identified as vacant for zero calendar days based on its conclusion that a vacancy of zero days represented situations where a position was immediately filled, thus demonstrating good planning and management by the awardee. 2. Contracting agency reasonably concluded that awardees program manager had the solicitations desired experience, despite the fact that the awardees proposal indicated that its program manager only partially met the desired experience criterion, where the record shows that the evaluators were familiar with the nature of the positions held by the proposed program manager; the program managers experience was well known within the Department of Defense; two other offerors proposed the same program manager as having the desired experience; and the program managers declaration supported the agencys conclusions about his experience. 3. Challenge to awardees past performance rating of confidence is denied where the record shows that the rating was reasonable despite a single negative past performance questionnaire, which the agency considered in conjunction with the awardees response to the concerns raised. DECISION The OMO Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to RehabPlus Group, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8901-04-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Air Force for Family Advocacy Program (FAP) services. OMO challenges the Air Forces 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 FAP staff at Air Force medical treatment facilities in the western continental United States. The FAPs 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 time-and-materials contract for a base year with four 1-year options to the firm submitting the proposal evaluated to represent the best value. Proposals were to be evaluated under four factors: mission capability, proposal risk, past performance, and price. When combined, the non-price factors were significantly more important than price. Mission capability and proposal risk were further divided into the following subfactors (in descending order of importance): corporate experience, management, and recruitment/retention plan. Proposals received one of four color ratings for each subfactor under the mission capability factor: blue (exceptional), green (acceptable), yellow (marginal), and red (unacceptable). Under the proposal risk factor they were scored as high, moderate, or low risk. Past performance was rated based on relevance (very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant) and confidence (high confidence, significant confidence, confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, little confidence, or no confidence). Under the terms of the RFP, past performance of subcontractors proposed to perform at least 25 percent of the proposed effort was considered in addition to the prime contractors past performance. RFP M002(e). For the purpose of evaluating corporate experience, the RFP (as amended) required offerors to submit a list of contracts; for each contract offerors were to provide an average vacancy fill rate, which was defined as the average number of days direct health care positions were vacant during the contract period of performance for each contract. RFP L 3.1. With regard to calculating the average vacancy fill rate, the RFP explained that only those positions that were actually vacant will be used when computing the average vacancy fill rate. RFP L 3.1.