B-297838.3, The Arora Group, Inc., September 12, 2006

B-297838.3 Sep 12, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Arora Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to STG International, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62645-05-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Medical Logistics Command, for radiology support services for the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia. Arora challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297838.3, The Arora Group, Inc., September 12, 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: The Arora Group, Inc. File: B-297838.3 Date: September 12, 2006 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., and Robyn Guilliams, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, P.C., for the protester. Daryle A. Jordan, Esq., Patrick Henry LLP, for STG International, Inc., an intervenor. Julia P. Hatch, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where the agency reasonably evaluated proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and where the solicitation provided for award on the basis of the most advantageous proposal, the agency reasonably selected for award a higher technically rated, lower priced proposal. DECISION The Arora Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to STG International, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62645-05-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Medical Logistics Command, for radiology support services[1] for the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia. Arora challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Solicitation and Evaluation Results The RFP, issued on June 10, 2005 as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base period and four 1-year option periods to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government, technical evaluation factors (past performance and management planning and market research) and price considered. With respect to past performance, the RFP required an offeror to provide information about not more than five of its previous or current contracts that were relevant to the RFP requirements, that is, those contracts performed within the last 5 years –that demonstrate the prior experience of corporate officials or subcontractors/teaming partners who will be performing in support of the contract resulting from this solicitation; such contracts shall be clearly notated to show the relationship of the past performance entry to the offeror.— RFP amend. 2, sect. L.2.2.a(1), at 202.[2] More specifically, in terms of whether an offeror's past performance information was relevant, the RFP stated that the agency would consider the –age of the previous/current contracts, the range of labor categories provided, the clinical settings in which the past performance occurred, and the numbers of personnel provided.— RFP amend. 2, sect. L.3.1.a(1), at 205. Based on the –quantity and quality— of the offeror's past performance, and giving greater consideration to past performance that was more relevant to the RFP requirements, the RFP stated that the agency would assess the risk to the government of non'performance of the requirements by the offeror. The RFP advised that the agency would not restrict its past performance evaluation to information submitted by the offeror, but would consider –any other relevant information in its possession— or information obtained from past performance references. RFP amend. 2, sect. L.3.1.a(2), (3), at 205. The RFP stated that the past performance evaluation factor would be considered significantly more important than the management planning and market research evaluation factor,[3] and that the combination of technical evaluation factors would be considered significantly more important than price (which would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and realism). RFP amend. 2, sect. M.1.b, at 206. The RFP explained that as the technical merit of proposals became closer, price would become more important in making the award determination; in the event that proposals were determined to be technically equal, the RFP provided that the award could be made to the offeror with the lower priced proposal. Following corrective action in response to an earlier protest filed by Arora (the incumbent contractor) and the agency's conduct of discussions, eight firms, including Arora and STG, submitted final revised proposals.