Grove Resource Solutions, Inc., B-296228; B-296228.2, July 1, 2005

Grove Resource Solutions, Inc., B-296228; B-296228.2, July 1, 2005 TITLE: Grove Resource Solutions, Inc., B-296228; B-296228.2, July 1, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296228; B-296228.2 DATE: July 1, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Grove Resource Solutions, Inc. File: B-296228; B-296228.2 Date: July 1, 2005 Deborah M. Grove for the protester. Robert J. McMullen, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's inclusion of the awardee's proposal in the competitive range even though the proposal was unacceptable as submitted was reasonable under the circumstances; the exclusion of technically unacceptable proposals from the competitive range, while permissible, is not required. 2. Agency's price realism analysis of the awardee's proposal was reasonable where the agency determined that the labor rates proposed by the awardee were, among other things, similar to those listed for similar labor categories on the awardee's and other vendors' federal supply schedule contracts, and were sufficient to provide acceptable personnel. DECISION Grove Resource Solutions, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Evolvent Technologies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-05-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Navy for telemedicine engineering and technical support services for the Naval Medical Information Management Center, Bethesda, Maryland. Grove argues that the agency's evaluation of Evolvent's proposal and selection of it for award were unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a time-and-materials contract for a base period of 6-months with four 1-year options. RFP at 23. A statement of work (SOW) described the services to be provided and stated that the contractor would be required to furnish the following staff positions: a project manager/telemedicine systems engineer, a telemedicine systems engineer--Naval Medical Information Management Center Telemedicine Operations Help Desk Support, and a principal analyst. For each of these positions, the SOW described a "specific skill set" that the personnel was required to have. For example, the project manager/telemedicine systems engineer position was required to have, among other things, "military acquired Knowledge and Experience or appropriate accredited Degree," "Military Clinical Medical and Dental Experience or equivalent" and "Telemedicine systems expertise." RFP amend. 4 at 5-6. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the government and that the technical or non-price evaluation factors combined were more important than price. The RFP listed the following technical or non-price evaluation factors: technical approach; corporate experience; past performance; and extent of participation of small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract.[1] RFP at 48. The RFP provided with regard to price that "[u]nrealistic rates, as determined by the contracting officer, may also be considered in risk assessment and the offeror's overall proposal may be downgraded." RFP at 49. In addition, the RFP incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Section 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, which provides for an assessment of each offeror's ability to provide uninterrupted, high-quality work, considering the realism of the proposed professional compensation and its impact upon recruiting and retention. See Engineering & Env't, Inc., B-271868.3, Sept. 3, 1996, 96-2 CPD paragraph 182 at 7; Planning Sys. Inc., B-246170.4, Dec. 29, 1992, 92-2 CPD paragraph 445 at 2. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of technical and price proposals, and required, with regard to price, that the offerors complete the price schedule set forth in the solicitation. The price schedule included, among other things, separate contract line items (CLIN) for three staff positions (project manager/telemedicine systems engineer, telemedicine systems engineer, and principal analyst), and an estimated number of hours for each position. For example, CLIN 0001AA listed the position of project manager/telemedicine systems engineer, with an estimated level of effort of 920 hours for the base period of the contract, and offerors were required to insert a unit price per hour and an extended price based upon the RFP's estimated level of effort of 920 hours. RFP at 3; RFP amend. 2 at 5.