United Medevac Solutions, Inc.
Case: B-417032
Agency: Department of Defense : Department of the Air Force
Protester: United Medevac Solutions, Inc.
Date: 2019-01-24
Denied
B-417032,B-417032.2
Jan 24, 2019
Jump To
FULL REPORT
VIEW DECISION
RELATED PAGES
GAO CONTACTS
Highlights
United Medevac Solutions, Inc., a woman-owned small business of Georgetown, Texas, protests award of a contract to TGW SuperiorCare MTS, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3016-18-U-0255, issued by the Department of the Air Force for emergency medical ambulance services at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of past performance and best-value decision.
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 redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision
Matter of: United Medevac Solutions, Inc.
File: B-417032; B-417032.2
Date: January 24, 2019
Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Meghan Leemon, Esq., Kathryn Flood, Esq., and Matthew Feinberg, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester.
Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Lieutenant Colonel Damund Williams, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Heather Self, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
DECISION
United Medevac Solutions, Inc., a woman-owned small business of Georgetown, Texas, protests award of a contract to TGW SuperiorCare MTS, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3016-18-U-0255, issued by the Department of the Air Force for emergency medical ambulance services at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of past performance and best-value decision.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The Air Force issued the RFP as a total small business set-aside on August 8, 2018, pursuant to the commercial item and simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13, respectively. Agency Report (AR), Tab 7a, RFP at 1. The RFP sought proposals for ground transport emergency medical services (EMS), including advanced life support (ALS), twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for patients requiring emergency transportation from Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph to higher-level care facilities in the surrounding geographic area. AR, Tab 7b, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The RFP specified a required response time of 12 minutes or less on at least 90 percent of runs for an estimated 200 runs per year. Id. The RFP contemplated award of a single fixed-price contract for a 1-year base period of performance and four 1-year options, and provided that award would be made on the basis of three factors: technical (which included four subfactors); past performance; and price. RFP at 8. Award was to be made to the offeror representing the best value to the government, with the non-price factors identified as significantly more important than price. Id.
The RFP explained the evaluation process would begin with a pass/fail technical evaluation of proposals under the four subfactors within the technical factor: (1) ability to perform; (2) qualifications and experience; (3) management capability; and (4) mission essential contractor services plan. RFP at 8-9. Then, beginning with the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal, the agency would consider the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance and assign a performance confidence rating of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence.[1] Id. at 12-13. If the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal was judged to have a substantial confidence rating, the RFP established that the evaluation would stop at that point with award being made to that offeror without further consideration of any other proposals. Id.
Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...