B-297078; B-297078.2, Lifecare Management Partners, November 21, 2005

B-297078; B-297078.2, Lifecare Management Partners, November 21, 2005 TITLE: B-297078; B-297078.2, Lifecare Management Partners, November 21, 2005 BNUMBER: B-297078; B-297078.2 DATE: November 21, 2005 ********************************************************************* B-297078; B-297078.2, Lifecare Management Partners, November 21, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Lifecare Management Partners File: B-297078; B-297078.2 Date: November 21, 2005 Janine S. Benton, Esq., H. Scott Johnson, Jr., Esq., Seth C. Berenzweig, Esq., Heather A. James, Esq., and Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., Albo & Oblon, L.L.P., for the protester. Capt. Joseph V. Fratarcangeli, Department of the Army, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly relaxed solicitation's requirement that offerors be able to commence contract performance by the start date by delaying the start date is denied where the agency decision to alter the contract start date was based upon delays in contract award, including an agency-level protest filed by the protester. 2. Protest of agency's technical evaluation is denied where record shows evaluation was reasonable and consistent with evaluation criteria; mere disagreement with agency's evaluation is insufficient to show it was unreasonable. 3. Protest filed with Government Accountability Office is untimely where filed more than 10 days after protester became aware of initial adverse agency action on agency-level protest. DECISION Lifecare Management Partners protests the award of a contract to Wright Solutions, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91YTZ-05-R-0004, issued by the North Atlantic Regional Contracting Office, Department of the Army, for certified medical record coding services at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), located in Washington, District of Columbia. Lifecare argues that various agency actions, including the evaluation of Wright's proposal, were unreasonable, and that the resulting award decision was improper. We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 4, 2005, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with four 1-year options to provide certified medical record coding services. The solicitation established three evaluation factors: technical; past performance; and price.[1] RFP at 26. The RFP also informed offerors that the technical factor was more important than either the past performance or price factors, which were of equal importance. Id. at 27. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be "most advantageous" to the government, all factors considered. Id. at 26. Seven offerors, including Wright and the incumbent Lifecare, submitted proposals by the May 20 closing date. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Source Selection Decision, at 2. The contracting officer determined that five offerors were within the competitive range. The Army then received individual oral presentations from the offerors in the competitive range.[2] An agency technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated offerors' written proposals and oral presentations using an adjectival rating system: excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory for the technical evaluation factor; and good/low risk, satisfactory/medium risk, unsatisfactory/high risk, and neutral/ unknown performance risk for the past performance evaluation factor.