University of Massachusetts Medical School

B-416646 Sep 24, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMass), of Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to NaphCare, Inc., of Birmingham, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFPP05081500001, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for comprehensive medical services at the Federal Correctional Complex in Forrest City, Arkansas. The protester alleges that the agency performed an unreasonable best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  University of Massachusetts Medical School File:  B-416646 Date:  September 24, 2018 Dyana Nickl, J.D., and Robert DeLanders, Esq., for the protester. Jason A. Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., and Evan R. Sherwood, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for NaphCare, Inc., the intervenor. Oleta Vassilopoulos, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency's best-value tradeoff analysis was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that it was, in fact, reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. DECISION The University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMass), of Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to NaphCare, Inc., of Birmingham, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFPP05081500001, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for comprehensive medical services at the Federal Correctional Complex in Forrest City, Arkansas.  The protester alleges that the agency performed an unreasonable best-value tradeoff.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on November 19, 2015, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed unit pricing to be performed over a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at Bates 1, 8.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the performance of inpatient facility services, outpatient facility services, inpatient/outpatient physician services, and outpatient institution services.[2]  Id. at Bates 10.  The solicitation advised that proposals would be evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis using price, technical, and past performance factors.  Id. at 55.  When combined, the non-price factors were approximately equal to the price factor.  Id. The agency received proposals from eleven offerors, including UMass and NaphCare, prior to the January 28, 2016, closing date.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 3.  The agency made an initial competitive range determination, which included UMass and NaphCare, and conducted discussions throughout 2017.  Id.  After receiving revised proposals, the agency made a final competitive range determination, which again included UMass and NaphCare.  Id.  Following another round of discussions, the offerors submitted final revised proposals by May 2, 2018.  Id. The agency's evaluation produced the following results:   UMass NaphCare Technical Very Good Exceptional Minus Past Performance Exceptional Exceptional Price 106.12 105.86 AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision at Bates 18.  In making his source selection decision, the source selection authority (SSA) compared the proposals, including those of UMass and NaphCare.  Id. at 18-21.  The SSA concluded that NaphCare's proposal was technically superior to UMass' proposal.  He found that the NaphCare proposal offered a significant advantage over the UMass proposal because it included specific enhancements that decreased the agency's costs and security risks, whereas the UMass proposal contained enhancements that were of minimal value to the agency.  Id. at 20-21.  The SSA also determined that the NaphCare proposal offered an additional slight technical advantage over the UMass proposal because it included a greater diversity of physician services and a more favorable driving distance to a community-based health care provider.  Id. at 19-20.  The SSA further noted that the difference between the evaluated prices was 0.2 percent and therefore UMass had only a slight advantage in that factor.  Id. at 21.  Based on the SSA's consideration of all features of the proposals, the SSA selected NaphCare for award.  After UMass received its written debriefing, it filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION UMass complains that the best-value tradeoff analysis was unreasonable because its proposal was superior or equal to the NaphCare proposal in regard to the price and past performance factors.  Protest at 1.