CRAssociates, Inc.

B-414171 Mar 16, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CRAssociates, Inc., of Newington, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. VA263-17-R-0013, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for community-based outpatient clinic services in Williston and Dickinson, North Dakota. The protester contends that the solicitation improperly fails to require an evaluation of price realism; specifically, the firm contends that the agency is required to include in the solicitation the provision at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, to assess the realism of offerors' prices. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version, with no redactions, has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  CRAssociates, Inc. File:  B-414171 Date:  March 16, 2017 Matthew R. Keller, Esq., and Charlotte R. Rosen, Esq., Odin Feldman Pittleman PC, for the protester. David G. Fagan, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s failure to include provision in solicitation providing for evaluation of realism of offerors’ professional employee compensation is denied because no such evaluation is required where the solicitation is for the procurement of commercial items issued pursuant to the procedures established under Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12. DECISION CRAssociates, Inc., of Newington, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. VA263-17-R-0013, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for community-based outpatient clinic services in Williston and Dickinson, North Dakota.  The protester contends that the solicitation improperly fails to require an evaluation of price realism; specifically, the firm contends that the agency is required to include in the solicitation the provision at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, to assess the realism of offerors’ prices. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on October 24, 2016, as a commercial item procurement under FAR Part 12, contemplates the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for clinic services for veterans.  The solicitation establishes a minimum staffing requirement for a primary care physician, a Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse, a Clerical Associate (with a Master of Science degree in Administration), and a Telehealth Clinical Technician.  RFP at 28.  The RFP includes annual workload projections based on historical data of the number of patients served at the Williston and Dickinson clinics from 2010 to 2013, as well as projected growth estimates through 2017.  RFP at 92-93.  Work minimums and maximums are also included in the RFP.  RFP at 17.  Proposals are to be assessed under the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical capability (including subfactors for quality; management, experience and staffing, and transition plan; and geographic location); (2) past performance; (3) veterans preference; and (4) price.  Offerors are to provide per patient per month unit prices (along with extended prices based on stated quantity estimates).  RFP at 17.  Price is to be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.  RFP at 128.  Award is to be made to the offeror with the proposal considered to be most advantageous to the agency based on the technical factors and price.  Id.  This protest was filed on December 6, the amended closing date for the receipt of proposals.  Contracting Officer Statement at 1. DISCUSSION CRAssociates contends that the solicitation is defective because it does not provide for the evaluation of price realism, specifically in terms of compensation for professional employees, and that the solicitation is ambiguous with respect to certain provisions regarding the RFP’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).[1]  With regard to its price realism arguments, the protester maintains that, in accordance with FAR § 22.1103, the agency was required to include in the solicitation the provision at FAR § 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, for the purpose of evaluating whether an offeror’s compensation plan for hiring professional employees is realistic.[2]  This provision would require each offeror to submit a total compensation plan for professional employees, and for the agency to evaluate the offeror’s plan to assure that it reflects “a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements.”  FAR § 52.222‑46.  As further support for its belief that a realism evaluation ...