B-297687.2, Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture, June 20, 2006

B-297687.2 Jun 20, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture protests the award of a contract to Luke and Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7012-05-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Air Force for direct care clinical support services, i.e., the provision of high-quality healthcare workers to treat patients inside Air Force Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) within the United States. Magnum protests the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's selection of Luke's proposal for award. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-297687.2, Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture, June 20, 2006 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: Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture File: B-297687.2 Date: June 20, 2006 Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Robert G. Hanseman, Esq., and Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Sebaly Shillito & Dyer, for the protester. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq., and Edward N. Ramras, Esq., Department of the Air Force, and John W. Klein, Esq., and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., United States Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where the agency did not reasonably evaluate in accordance with the terms of a multiple-award solicitation the proposals of the protester and an awardee and where the protester, the lowest priced offeror, was competitively prejudiced by the agency's flawed evaluation. DECISION Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture[1] protests the award of a contract to Luke and Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7012-05-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Air Force for direct care clinical support services, i.e., the provision of high-quality healthcare workers to treat patients inside Air Force Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) within the United States. Magnum protests the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's selection of Luke's proposal for award. We sustain the protest.[2] BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside on May 13, 2005, stated the agency's intent to –award up to five— indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity fixed'price contracts for a 4'year basic contract period and two 3'year option periods to those responsible offerors whose proposals represented the best value to the government based on an integrated assessment of mission capability, past performance, proposal risk, and price. RFP at 210. Under the RFP, the evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance with mission capability and past performance being equal in importance, and proposal risk being more important than price. The RFP stated that the non'price evaluation factors, when combined, would be considered significantly more important than price, but that price would contribute substantially to the selection decision. The mission capability evaluation factor contained the following three subfactors, which were listed in descending order of importance: retain, recruit, and qualify. As relevant here, under the qualify subfactor, the agency would evaluate the adequacy, clarity, and executability of the offeror's management plan in terms of the offeror demonstrating the ability to provide personnel that would meet minimum qualification and security requirements and the capability of the offeror to submit complete and accurate security and, when required, credentialing packages. Under the RFP, the qualify subfactor would be met when the offeror's proposed –organizational structure and staffing plan,— defined in the RFP as the offeror's –internal processes that demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness in processing the required documentation [i.e., resumes, credentialing packages, and security documents] prior to the start of work under the task order,— showed the offeror's ability to timely submit complete and accurate security and, when required, credentialing packages. RFP at 212-13.[3] As explained by the agency during a conference call in which our Office and all parties to this protest participated, there are two types of healthcare workers--credentialed and non-credentialed. Credentialed healthcare workers, such as doctors, are those who have gone through a credentialing process and have obtained privileges through the applicable MTF credentialing committee in order to work at the facility. Under the RFP, the contractor must provide a complete, current, and accurate credentialing package for each proposed healthcare worker requiring privileges and must make these proposed workers available for an interview by the MTF during the credentialing process.