DURO Health, LLC (FA4890-18-R-5035)

B-418582 Jun 19, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DURO Health, LLC, a small business of Portland, Oregon, protests the failure of the agency to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-18-R-5035, issued by the Department of the Air Force, to provide pre-habilitation support services to fighter aircrew. The protester contends that the technical evaluation team was biased toward a rehabilitative approach, which led to an unreasonable evaluation of the protester's technical proposal, past performance record, and price. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  DURO Health, LLC File:  B-418582 Date:  June 19, 2020 Randy Ziobro for the protester. J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., and Beth V. McMahon, Esq., ReavesColey, PLLC, for LMR Technology Group, LLC, the intervenor. Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Esq., Lawrence Anderson, Esq., Beatrice K. Foster, Esq., Kevin P. Stiens, Esq., and Cheronne R. Wilson, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging agency improperly evaluated protester’s technical proposal, past performance record, and price is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with terms of solicitation. DECISION   DURO Health, LLC, a small business of Portland, Oregon, protests the failure of the agency to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-18-R-5035, issued by the Department of the Air Force, to provide pre-habilitation support services to fighter aircrew.  The protester contends that the technical evaluation team was biased toward a rehabilitative approach, which led to an unreasonable evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal, past performance record, and price. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND According to the agency, it has experienced difficulty retaining fighter aircrew due to the neck and back pain caused by the physical demands of flight in the Air Force’s fighter aircraft.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  To address these physical needs and better prepare its aircrew, the agency is implementing a program referred to as “Optimizing the Human Weapon System” (OHWS).  Id.  The solicitation here, issued in support of the OHWS program, seeks proposals to provide pre-habilitation services to increase the physical capacity of the fighter aircrew, decrease the rate of injuries, and accelerate the return of crew members to duty.  COS at 2; AR, Tab 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 42.  The solicitation’s PWS requires the contractor to provide a total of 63 core and 106 optional full-time equivalent personnel, including 46 core and 30 optional athletic trainers, 3 core and 59 optional certified strength and conditioning specialists, and 15 core and 17 optional massage therapists.  COS at 3; PWS at 62-64.  The agency issued the subject solicitation on August 16, 2019 under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15.  AR, Tab 4, RFP at 1.  The RFP was set aside for competition among small businesses, and contemplated award of a fixed-price contract with a five-year period of performance.  Id. at 1.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering technical approach, past performance, and price.  Id.  The solicitation stated that technical approach and past performance were equally important, and, when combined, were “significantly more important than cost/price.”  Id. at 4.  The due date for proposals was September 27, 2019.  Id. at 3. As stated above, the solicitation listed three areas to be evaluated: (1) technical, (2) past performance, and (3) price.  Id. at 5-7.  The solicitation instructed offerors to assume that the agency had “no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities.”  Id. at 5.  Under the technical factor, the solicitation required offerors to indicate how they intended to meet two stated criteria.  COS at 5; RFP at 6.  Criterion One required offerors to develop and provide a fitness program that addressed training preparation, strength development, and cardiovascular health.  RFP at 6.  The solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate responses under Criterion One to determine whether the proposal demonstrated “a sound understanding and knowledge of neck and back pain injuries, mitigation and prevention.”  Id. at 11.  Criterion Two required offerors to indicate how their fitness program would reduce neck and back pain injuries, as well as duty time lost, while increasing the aircrew’s retention rate, quality of life, and readiness.  Id. at 6.  The agency would evaluate responses under Criterion Two to determine whether the proposal provided a sound methodology for addressing these issues.  Id.