OneSource PCS, LLC (FA301620R0058)

B-419222 Jan 06, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights OneSourcePCS, LLC, a small business of Pensacola, Florida, protests the award of a contract to AIMS Locum Tenens, LLC, of Pikesville, Maryland, under request for proposal (RFP) No. FA301620R0058, issued by the Department of the Air Force for photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) personal and non-personal services at Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center and the Joint Warfighter Refractive Surgery Center on Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas. OneSource contends that the Air Force's evaluation of AIMS's past performance was unreasonable. We sustain 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:  OneSource PCS, LLC File:  B-419222 Date:  January 6, 2021 William A. Shook, Esq., The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, for the protester. W. Stephen Graves, Graves Law Firm, for AIMS Locum Tenens, LLC, the intervenor. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Michael J. Farr, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, 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 experience is sustained where the record shows that the evaluation was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, and the agency’s finding that the awardee’s past performance references were relevant was unreasonable. DECISION   OneSourcePCS, LLC, a small business of Pensacola, Florida, protests the award of a contract to AIMS Locum Tenens, LLC, of Pikesville, Maryland, under request for proposal (RFP) No. FA301620R0058, issued by the Department of the Air Force for photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) personal and non-personal services at Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center and the Joint Warfighter Refractive Surgery Center on Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas.  OneSource contends that the Air Force’s evaluation of AIMS’s past performance was unreasonable.  We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 21, 2020, as a competitive 8(a) set-aside, sought proposals for PRK personal and non-personal services, identifying the following labor categories:  optometrists, a clinical manager/research assistant, PRK surgical technicians, PRK technicians, and an operations manager.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 1, 3-5.[2]  The solicitation anticipated award for a base performance period of one year and four one-year option periods.  Id. at 5. The solicitation informed offerors that the Air Force would evaluate proposals based on two factors:  past performance and price.  AR, Tab 16, RFP Instructions and Evaluation Procedures at 1.  The instructions further stated that the agency would conduct the acquisition using a “best value/trade-off approach where past performance is significantly more important than price.”  Id. at 4.  Offerors were instructed to identify at least two, but no more than four, references for the past performance evaluation.  Id. at 2.  To assess price, offerors were required to complete the provided pricing worksheet, proposing unit pricing for each listed contract line item number (CLIN),[3] as well as submit a professional employee compensation plan (PECP).  Id. at 4, 8.  The RFP explained the evaluation and award selection process as follows:  First, the agency would rank the proposals in order of price, from lowest to highest.  Id. at 5.  Next, the agency would evaluate the lowest-priced offeror’s past performance.  Id.  After evaluating that offeror’s past performance for “recency, relevancy, and quality,” the agency would assign the offer a performance confidence assessment rating.  Id. at 5-7.  Only an offer with a “substantial confidence” rating would be eligible for award.[4]  Id. at 5.  If the lowest-priced proposal was judged to have a “substantial confidence” rating and an acceptable PECP, then that proposal would represent the best value for the agency, the evaluation process would end, and award would be made to that offeror.  Id. at 5.  If, however, the lowest-priced proposal was not judged to have a “substantial confidence” rating, the agency would move to the next lowest‑priced proposal and evaluate that proposal’s past performance.  This process would continue (in order, by price) until a proposal was judged to have a “substantial confidence” rating, or until all offers were evaluated.  Id.  The Air Force received twelve proposals in response to the RFP, including proposals from AIMS and OneSource.  AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5.  The agency ranked the proposals according to price, ranging from lowest to highest.  Id.  The Air Force first evaluated the lowest-priced offeror’s past performance.  Id.