Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. (W9114F22R0002)

B-421659.6 Mar 07, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sterling Medical Associates, Inc., of Cincinnati, Ohio, protests the exclusion of its proposal from consideration for issuance of a task order under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9114F-22-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army for medical services to supplement the medical staff of military treatment facilities and health clinics. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's past performance evaluation. 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: Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. File: B-421659.6 Date: March 7, 2025 Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Erin R. Davis, Esq., Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq., Alexander Gorelik, Esq., Stephen G. Darby, Esq., and Celeste Friel, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, for the protester. Major Joshua A. Reyes, Department of the Army, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s past performance evaluation and exclusion of the protester’s proposal from the competition is denied where the agency reasonably considered past performance information received in response to questionnaires and from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System regarding the protester’s recent and relevant performance consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Sterling Medical Associates, Inc., of Cincinnati, Ohio, protests the exclusion of its proposal from consideration for issuance of a task order under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9114F-22-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army for medical services to supplement the medical staff of military treatment facilities and health clinics. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s past performance evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Solicitation The Army issued the solicitation pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15 on March 17, 2022, seeking a contractor to provide healthcare workers to supplement the medical staff at agency medical facilities outside of the Continental United States (OCONUS). Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1, 348, 430. The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, with a 1-year base period and four 1-year ordering periods. Id. at 350. Award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff using the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical capability, performance risk (present and past performance), and price. RFP at 429-30. When combined, the nonprice factors were significantly more important than price. Id. at 430. The performance risk factor is relevant here, and we refer to it as the “past performance factor.” Id. For past performance, the RFP’s instructions stated that an offeror should submit no more than five relevant past performance references for “contracts” performed or awarded during the 3 years prior to the issuance of the RFP.[1] RFP at 416. For purposes of offeror submissions, the solicitation specified that the term “contract” did not include individual task orders and defined “performance” as “at least 24 months of performance within the last three years.” Id. at 416, 436. In evaluating past performance, the RFP provided that the Army would assess the “offeror’s record of Present and Past Performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS [performance work statement].” RFP at 436. The RFP also reserved to the agency the right to consider other information by stating, among other things: “The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.”[2] Id. After assessing recency, relevancy,[3] and quality, the evaluation findings would result in one of the following consensus performance confidence assessment ratings: substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence.[4] Id. at 436-438. The RFP provided that the Army would use a phased approach to evaluate proposals, with past performance evaluated in the first phase. Pertinent here, the RFP stated: “Offerors must receive a confidence rating of ‘Substantial,’ ‘Satisfactory,’ or ‘Unknown Confidence’ in order to move on to the Technical evaluation phase.