Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., B-294608, December 1, 2004

B-294608 Dec 01, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. (CHS) protests the award of a contract to Computer Services Corporation (CSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2004-N-01108, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for occupational health services for CDC employees in the Atlanta, Georgia, area. CHS argues that the agency failed to conduct adequate discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294608, Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., December 1, 2004 Decision Matter of: Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. File: B-294608 Date: December 1, 2004 Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, Esq., for the protester. Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., for Computer Services Corporation, an intervenor. Scott C. Briles, Esq., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Contracting agency engaged in meaningful discussions concerning adequacy of proposed staffing, such that the protester should have known and understood the agency's concerns, where it advised offeror during oral discussions that protester's labor hours for full time employees were understated. DECISION Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. (CHS) protests the award of a contract to Computer Services Corporation (CSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2004-N-01108, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for occupational health services for CDC employees in the Atlanta, Georgia, area. CHS argues that the agency failed to conduct adequate discussions. We deny the protest. The RFP was synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website on January 15, 2004. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year, with four 1-year options. In a 34-page statement of work (SOW), the RFP specified that the contractor would be required to provide all personnel, equipment and supplies to operate the CDC Occupational Health Clinics, including occupational medical services, the employee assistance program (EAP), and worksite and health promotion programs. The solicitation required that proposals include, among other things, a complete "staffing plan which demonstrates an understanding of the labor requirements of this RFP." RFP at 84. To assist offerors, the RFP provided relevant information from previous years, as well as estimates of the number of annual patient exams and visits. In response to questions, the agency noted that "[f]or planning purposes, we anticipate annual visits will increase by 10% per year for years 2004 and 2005; for years 2006 through 2009, we anticipate annual visits will increase by 2.5% per year." Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Questions and Answers, at 2. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represented the "best value" to the agency based on an evaluation of the proposed technical approach (50 points), management plan/personnel qualifications (35 points), corporate experience (15 points), and cost. Id. at 91. Technical merit was significantly more important than cost or price. The agency received five proposals, which were evaluated by a four-member technical evaluation panel (TEP). Following the initial evaluation, CHS's proposal, with 83.01 points, was rated technically outstanding, while CSC's, with 91.89 points, was rated technically superior. AR, Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts, at 4. Both proposals were included in the competitive range. AR, Tab 6, Competitive Range Determination, at5. Written and telephonic discussions were held. Seven written questions were forwarded to the protester prior to the oral discussions, including the following question: Explain in detail your reasoning in proposing 2.5 EAP staff members and how this number can adequately provide for the CDC population served (and defined) in the solicitation. During the subsequent oral discussions, the agency raised two additional issues with CHS (as memorialized in contemporaneous notes): "[CHS's] labor hours for full time employees were understated," and its "overhead and fringe benefits were overstated." AR, Tab 10, Discussions Questions, June 16 Memorandum for Record, at 1. Best and final offers (BAFO) were requested and received. In the final technical evaluation, the evaluators determined that CHS's proposed staffing estimates could not adequately support the CDC population served or the scope of work outlined in the solicitation. AR, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 5.