B-311385, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, June 19, 2008

B-311385 Jun 19, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital (PPMH) protests the award of a contract to Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-247-07-RP-0122, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for primary care and mental health services for veterans. Phoebe asserts that VA misevaluated its and Sterling's proposals and performed an improper "best value" analysis. We deny the protest. View Decision B-311385, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, June 19, 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: PhoebePutneyMemorialHospital File: B-311385 Date: June 19, 2008 Jeffrey E. Weinstein, Esq., for the protester. Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., Cohen Mohr, for Sterling Medical Associates, an intervenor. Harold W. Askins III, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency purportedly performed inadequate cost realism analysis is denied where no such analysis was required because solicitation contemplated award of fixed'price, rather than cost-reimbursement, contract and did not provide for any realism analysis. 2. Protest challenging scores assigned protester's and awardee's proposals under technical evaluation factors is denied where protester was not competitively prejudiced; even if protester's proposal received maximum possible technical score and awardee's score were reduced in accordance with protester's allegations, awardee would remain in line for award when price scores are considered. DECISION Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital (PPMH) protests the award of a contract to Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-247-07-RP-0122, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for primary care and mental health services for veterans. Phoebe asserts that VA misevaluated its and Sterling's proposals and performed an improper –best value— analysis. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for a best value award of an indefinite'quantity/ indefinite'delivery fixed-price contract based on four evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): experience and staffing (comprised of six subfactors), coordination and continuity of care (six subfactors), past performance (five subfactors), and price. RFP at 67. The solicitation provided that the factors, including price, would be numerically scored, id. at 66, and that the award would be –based on a scoring system ....— Id. at 67. Three offerors responded to the RFP, including PPMH and Sterling. Each of the four members of the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) reviewed the weaknesses and strengths in the technical proposals and assigned the proposals point scores for each subfactor, the total of which became the factor score assigned by that evaluator. The evaluators' factor scores were then averaged to calculate the offeror's final score for each factor and the total technical score. The contracting officer reviewed and assigned point scores to the price proposals, with the lowest'priced proposal receiving the maximum points (23) and each of the successively higher priced proposals receiving a percentage of the 23 points based on their deviation from the lowest price. The technical and price scores were then added together for a total proposal score. PPMH's proposal received 75.44 (out of 77 possible) technical points and 8.95 points for price, for a total score of 84.39 points. Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) at 2. Sterling's proposal received 75.31 technical points and 21.07 price points, for a total score of 96.38. Id.The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the evaluation results and selected Sterling for award. PPMH protests the award decision. PRICE EVALUATION PPMH protests that VA failed to perform an adequate price evaluation of Sterling's proposal. Specifically, PPMH complains that VA failed to consider Sterling's low pricing in the context of rising health care costs, failed to consider hidden costs in Sterling's proposal such as having lab testing performed at a remote VA location, and did not consider whether Sterling's proposed price was adequate to provide care in compliance with various VA directives. PPMH's argument is, in essence, that VA failed to perform a cost realism analysis of Sterling's proposal to determine if the government would actually pay more for the services than Sterling's proposed price. This argument is without merit. As noted, the RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract. There is no requirement that a realism analysis be performed when award of a fixed-price contract is contemplated.