Dentrust Dental Texas, P.C. (70B06C20R00000044)

B-419054.2,B-419054.3 Apr 06, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dentrust Dental International, Inc., d/b/a Dentrust Optimized Care Solutions (DOCS), of Pipersville, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Comprehensive Health Services, LLC, (CHS) of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70B06C20R00000044, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for comprehensive medical consultation and support services. The protester primarily argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its technical and management approach and its past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Dentrust Dental International, Inc. File:  B-419054.2; B-419054.3 Date:  April 6, 2021 Edward Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, for the protester. Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., and Nora K. Brent, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for Comprehensive Health Services, LLC, the intervenor. Ross Boone, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. DECISION   Dentrust Dental International, Inc., d/b/a Dentrust Optimized Care Solutions (DOCS), of Pipersville, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Comprehensive Health Services, LLC, (CHS) of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70B06C20R00000044, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for comprehensive medical consultation and support services.  The protester primarily argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its technical and management approach and its past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 18, 2020, anticipated the award of a fixed‑price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to obtain a variety of services related to recruitment, retention, and workplace wellness.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP, amend. 5 at 7; AR, Tab 7, Statement of Work (SOW) at 4.  These services include pre-employment medical fitness scheduling and testing, consultations regarding employee fitness qualifications, and operation of a drug free workplace program, and will be used to support both CBP’s Medical and Fitness Branch and its Hiring Center.  AR, Tab 7, SOW at 4.  The contract is to be performed over a 1-year base period, four 1-year option periods, and one 6-month optional extension.  RFP, amend. 5 at 11, 40.  Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value considering four evaluation factors:  technical and management approach, past performance, small business utilization plan, and price.  Id. at 74.  The technical and management approach factor was comprised of two subfactors:  technical and management approach overview (subfactor A) and oral presentation (subfactor B).  Id.  The overview subfactor included six elements, and the oral presentation subfactor included five technical problems, discussed as relevant below.  Id. at 67-68. The solicitation provided for a two-phase evaluation process.  Phase I included evaluating proposals under the technical and management approach overview subfactor, and under the past performance factor.  Id. at 76.  Following the phase I evaluation, each offeror would receive notice regarding whether it would be invited to participate in phase II.  Id.  Phase II included evaluating proposals under the oral presentation subfactor of the technical and management approach factor, and under the small business utilization plan factor, and by conducting a best-value tradeoff analysis.  Id.  The evaluation of price would occur separately.  Id. at 76-77. The technical and management approach factor was the most important, and its subfactors were equally important.  Id. at 78.  The past performance, small business utilization plan, and price factors were of lesser importance; past performance was more important than the small business utilization plan factor and price.  Id.  Price was the least important factor and, the non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price.  Id.  For the non-price factors, proposals would be evaluated as high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence.  Id. at 75.  The agency received three phase I proposals, including those from DOCS and CHS, by the September 21 closing date.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.