B-311273; B-311273.2, Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., June 2, 2008

B-311273; B-311273.2, Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., June 2, 2008 TITLE: B-311273; B-311273.2, Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., June 2, 2008 BNUMBER: B-311273; B-311273.2 DATE: June 2, 2008 ************************************************************************************ B-311273; B-311273.2, Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., June 2, 2008 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: Professional Performance Development Group, Inc. File: B-311273; B-311273.2 Date: June 2, 2008 John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., Kathryn T. Muldoon, Esq., and Le'Ontra B. Greenspan, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Krystal A. Jordan, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's proposal was reasonably evaluated by the contracting agency as technically unacceptable and excluded from the competitive range, where the proposal contained numerous informational deficiencies and the agency reasonably determined that discussions would not likely improve the proposal such that it would have a reasonable chance for award. DECISION Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., (PPDG) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. FOHS2008REGA, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Federal Occupational Health Services (FOHS) for occupational health and clinical services. PPDG argues that the agency's technical evaluation of its proposal was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The FOHS is a fee for service operation that, among other functions, assists federal managers in establishing occupational health services for federal employees; counseling employees at physical or emotional risk from alcoholism, drug abuse, stress, or other job-related factors; and promoting employee wellness and physical fitness. RFP sect. C.1. To this end, the FOHS has several thousand interagency agreements to provide basic occupational health and clinical services to federal employees through FOHS's occupational health centers. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. The RFP, which contemplated the award of a time-and-materials contract for a base year with four 1-year options, sought a contractor to provide the occupational health and clinical services specified in FOHS's interagency agreements in FOHS Region A.[1] RFP sections B.1, C.1, F.1. These services included, among other things, providing health screenings, first aid and treatment for minor illnesses and injuries, health awareness and education programs, and emergency responses. Id. sect. C.1.2. The solicitation's statement of work required the recruitment, retention, orientation, training, and oversight of all health care professionals and administrative staff necessary to deliver the required services at FOHS's "Service Provision Sites," which are permanent health centers typically located in buildings where there is a large concentration of federal employees. Id. In addition to routine staffing, temporary staffing is required to support federal response to natural disasters or other emergencies. The RFP identified six evaluation factors, which were weighted on a 100-point scale: key personnel and personnel management (25 points), transition plan (20 points), corporate experience and capabilities (15 points), general technical approach (15 points), quality assurance (15 points), and past performance (10 points). The solicitation also stated that the six factors, when combined, were "relatively equal to price." Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be the "most advantageous" to the government, all factors considered. Id. sect. M.2.a. The RFP included detailed instructions regarding the submission of proposals. Each offeror's technical proposal was not to exceed 35 pages, excluding resumes. Id. sect. L.2. The RFP contained the following instruction to offerors: Information requested herein must be furnished in writing fully and completely in compliance with instructions. The information requested and the manner of submittal is essential to permit prompt evaluation of all offers on a fair and uniform basis.