B-310553, Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., December 27, 2007

B-310553 Dec 27, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. (CHS) protests the award of a contract to Logistic Health, Inc. (LHI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. WX81XWH-07-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Army for health readiness support services to be furnished to all Department of Defense service components. CHS challenges the technical and price evaluations, the adequacy of discussions, and the price/technical tradeoff determination. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310553, Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., December 27, 2007 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: Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. File: B-310553 Date: December 27, 2007 L. James D'Agostino, Esq., and Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. Agnes P. Dover, Esq., Todd R. Overman, Esq., and Andrew C. Ertley, Esq., Hogan & Hartson LLP, for Logistic Health, Inc., an intervenor. MAJ Carla T. Peters, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Evaluation of protester's technical proposal was unobjectionable where, after discussions, agency reasonably determined that protester failed to correct identified weaknesses in technical approach; in particular, downgrading based on loss of proposed subcontractor after proposal submission was reasonable where loss of subcontractor reasonably was found to significantly impact protester's ability to provide certain health care specialists. 2. Agency reasonably determined that awardee's loss of proposed subcontractor after proposal submission did not warrant downgrading proposal--despite assessing weakness and revising strength associated with subcontractor in initial evaluation--where agency reasonably concluded that loss of subcontractor was not significant in light of awardee's substantial other proposed resources. 3. Agency provided meaningful discussions where, in response to failure of protester's initial proposal to address all statement of work requirements, it asked protester to describe and more fully explain identified processes, thereby leading protester into areas of its proposal that required amplification. 4. Agency's evaluation of awardee's price as reasonable was unobjectionable where evaluation was based on comparison of prices received and comparison of individual line item prices to independent government cost estimates (IGCE) for low and high ranges of estimated costs, and awardee's price--though higher than average IGCE--was lower than high range IGCE. DECISION Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. (CHS) protests the award of a contract to Logistic Health, Inc. (LHI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. WX81XWH-07-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Army for health readiness support services to be furnished to all Department of Defense service components. CHS challenges the technical and price evaluations, the adequacy of discussions, and the price/technical tradeoff determination. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to support the Reserve Health Readiness Program (RHRP), under which reserve military personnel are provided medical and dental support services. The RHRP follows a predecessor program known as the Federal Strategic Health Alliance (FEDS_HEAL). RHRP services include immunizations; physical examinations; periodic health assessments (PHA); post deployment health re-assessments (PDHRA); dental examinations, x-rays, and treatment; laboratory services; occupational health services; and other services as required. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a 1-year base period, with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated for –best value— on the basis of five factors (the first three of which included subfactors)--(1) technical approach--PHA; (2) technical approach--PDHRA; (3) corporate and management capabilities; (4) past performance; and (5) price. Factors 1 and 2 were of equal weight and were considered more important than factors 3 and 4, which were of equal weight. The non-price factors were rated on an adjectival basis (exceptional, good, acceptable, marginal, unacceptable, or, for past performance only, neutral ) and, combined, were significantly more important than price. Price was to be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and to ensure offerors understood the RFP's scope of work. Three offerors, including CHS and LHI, submitted proposals, which were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB). After the initial evaluation, only CHS's and LHI's proposals were included in the competitive range, and discussions were conducted with both.