The Arora Group, Inc.
Highlights
The Arora Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to STG International, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62645-05-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Medical Logistics Command, for radiology support services for the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia. Arora challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' past performance.
B-297838.3, The Arora Group, Inc., September 12, 2006
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: The Arora Group, Inc.
Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., and Robyn Guilliams, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, P.C., for the protester.
Daryle A. Jordan, Esq., Patrick Henry LLP, for STG International, Inc., an intervenor.
Julia P. Hatch, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Where the agency reasonably evaluated proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and where the solicitation provided for award on the basis of the most advantageous proposal, the agency reasonably selected for award a higher technically rated, lower priced proposal.
DECISION
The Arora Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to STG International, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62645-05-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Medical Logistics Command, for radiology support services[1] for the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia. Arora challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' past performance.
BACKGROUND
Solicitation and Evaluation Results
The RFP, issued on
The RFP stated that the past performance evaluation factor would be considered significantly more important than the management planning and market research evaluation factor,[3] and that the combination of technical evaluation factors would be considered significantly more important than price (which would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and realism). RFP amend. 2, sect. M.1.b, at 206. The RFP explained that as the technical merit of proposals became closer, price would become more important in making the award determination; in the event that proposals were determined to be technically equal, the RFP provided that the award could be made to the offeror with the lower priced proposal.
Following corrective action in response to an earlier protest filed by Arora (the incumbent contractor) and the agency's conduct of discussions, eight firms, including Arora and STG, submitted final revised proposals. As relevant here, the final revised proposals of Arora and STG were evaluated as follows:
Arora | STG | |
Past Performance | [deleted] | Very Low Risk |
Management Planning/Market Research | [deleted] | Very Low Risk |
Proposal Analysis Report,
Arora's total evaluated price ($[deleted]) was approximately [deleted] percent higher than STG's total evaluated price ($43,265,778.03).
Arora's Past Performance
Arora submitted five past performance references--two for services it provided and three for services provided by its proposed subcontractor, Spectrum Healthcare Resources. With respect to its own past performance, Arora's first reference was for an Air Force contract at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in
Arora's third reference was for services provided by Spectrum at
As previously stated, Arora is the incumbent contractor for the current requirements. The agency noted, however, that Arora did not list in its proposal this highly relevant past performance, where Arora has provided personnel in all 10 of the required labor categories. Under its incumbent contract, Arora successfully developed a cross'training program; it had a high retention rate; and, it established an employee recognition program. A reference for this contract reported that Arora's start-up of the contract was fine, noting that the firm was able to retain many of the incumbent personnel. In addition, the reference reported that Arora initially [deleted]. The reference indicated that he would work with Arora again.
Finally, the Naval Medical Logistics Command is responsible for the clinical support agreements issued in support of the TriCare Management Authority (TMA), which provides critical backfill support related to the Gulf War on Terrorism at the
In sum, in assigning the moderate risk (high end) past performance rating to Arora's proposal, the agency concluded that between Arora and its proposed subcontractor, Spectrum, the firms had demonstrated experience in filling all 10 of the required labor categories and demonstrated that they were capable of providing significant numbers of personnel covering complex requirements. The agency recognized that the references would consider Arora for future work, noting, however, that two of the references stated that Spectrum was either acceptable or only an average performer. The agency commented that, as the incumbent contractor with past performance directly relevant to the current requirements, Arora initially [deleted]. The agency further commented that Spectrum demonstrated significant non'compliance in delivering Gulf War on Terrorism positions. The agency concluded that the cumulative record of past performance for Arora and Spectrum indicated that deficiencies were evident, but considering the magnitude of the services that were delivered by these firms, successful or unsuccessful performance of the current requirements was equally probable. In the agency's view, the absence of widely reported high quality past performance precluded the assignment of a low risk past performance rating to Arora's proposal for the past performance evaluation factor.
STG's Past Performance
STG submitted seven past performance references, but in accordance with the terms of the RFP, the agency only considered the first five listed references. STG's first reference was for an Air Force contract at Lackland Air Force Base in
STG's second reference was for a commercial contract to provide radiology support services to a commercial company and, under that contract, Ms. Y, STG's proposed corporate quality assurance/compliance coordinator, recruited and staffed six of the required labor categories when she was employed as the chief operating officer at a medical staffing firm. The reference at the commercial company reported that Ms. Y was significantly involved in providing radiology support personnel when she was employed at the medical staffing firm. (The agency recognized that the personnel provided under the referenced contract were furnished on both a backfill basis and a long-term temporary basis, which was not analogous to providing long-term, hospital-based personnel as required under the current RFP.) The reference rated the quality of the performance of the medical staffing firm where Ms. Y was employed as excellent.
STG's third reference was for a commercial contract to provide radiology support services to a nationally known healthcare provider and, under that contract, Mr. Z, STG's proposed recruiter, recruited radiology personnel for positions in states in the mid-Atlantic region in five of the required labor categories. The reference characterized Mr. Z as an outstanding professional, reporting that while the primary role of Mr. Z when employed at the healthcare provider was as a recruiter, he also participated in the development of corporate strategies and was noted for his contributions in recruiting radiology personnel when the healthcare provider was experiencing severe personnel shortages. The reference reported that Mr. Z was very meticulous in assuring that qualifications and credentials were verified and up to date. The reference reported that while Mr. Z did not maintain staff and fill rates, he was very knowledgeable in the area of human relations including, for example, labor laws and personnel benefits.
STG's fourth reference was for a contract to provide radiation therapy services at Keesler Air Force Base in
STG's fifth reference was for a multi-disciplinary healthcare services contract at the hospital at the United States Air Force Academy in
In sum, in assigning the very low risk past performance rating to STG's proposal, the agency concluded that STG demonstrated experience in filling all 10 of the required labor categories. The agency stated that the quality of STG's experience, as reflected by the references, was exemplary and that there was a high probability of successful performance of the current requirements. The agency concluded that STG exhibited extensive past performance within required timeframes on services relevant or closely matched to those required by the current RFP. The agency also commented that STG's expedited response to the Global War on Terrorism requirements was a noteworthy accomplishment.
In making its source selection decision, the agency considered that both Arora and STG demonstrated relevant past performance and experience in providing personnel in all of the required labor categories. The agency believed that STG had a stronger record of past performance as compared to Arora, [deleted]. In addition, the agency noted that Arora's proposed subcontractor, Spectrum, has had past performance problems, with references characterizing Spectrum's performance as acceptable or only average. The agency further considered that both firms were very low risk in terms of management planning and market research. With respect to price, the agency concluded that both firms submitted prices that were complete, reasonable, and realistic, with STG's total evaluated price being slightly less than Arora's total evaluated price. The agency pointed out, however, that for the base year line items for healthcare workers, STG proposed higher overall hourly rates than Arora for approximately 60 percent of the line items. As a result, the agency concluded that STG's higher overall hourly rates would be more favorable in terms of recruiting and retaining the incumbent workforce, especially in turnover situations. Therefore, in light of STG's stronger record of past performance, its higher overall hourly rates for the majority of healthcare worker line items, and its lower overall price, the agency determined that STG's higher technically rated, lower priced proposal represented the best value to the government. Proposal Analysis Report, supra, at 15.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In evaluating its record of past performance, Arora contends that the agency improperly considered its performance as the incumbent contractor at the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia, for the identical requirements that are the subject of this protested procurement, as well as the performance of its proposed subcontractor, Spectrum, at the Naval Hospital in Bremerton, Washington, related to that firm's provision of critical backfill support for the Gulf War on Terrorism. Arora maintains that it was improper for the agency to consider the
In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, we will consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. Kira, Inc.; All Star Maint., Inc., B-291507, B-291507.2,
Here, while the RFP required offerors to submit information about not more than five previous or current relevant contracts, the RFP specifically advised offerors that the agency would not restrict its past performance evaluation to information submitted by the offeror, but rather, the agency would consider any other relevant information in its possession. Although Arora narrowly reads these provisions to mean that the agency could only consider any other relevant information to the extent such information related to the five contracts the firm listed in its proposal, we conclude that there was nothing in the RFP that restricted the agency's consideration in this manner. In this regard, in evaluating proposals, an agency may properly consider information from sources that are not listed in an offeror's proposal. See, e.g., Pearl Props.; DNL Props., Inc., B-253614.6, B-253614.7,
More particularly, with respect to Arora's performance as the incumbent contractor under the Portsmouth contract--arguably the most relevant of Arora's contracts, despite the fact that the firm did not list this contract in its proposal--the record shows, and Arora does not meaningfully dispute, that the firm initially [deleted]. While Arora characterizes these matters, which ultimately were resolved, as paperwork related, Arora's Supplemental Comments at 2, the fact is that these issues involved critical threshold requirements having a direct impact on whether Arora's proposed personnel and staff were qualified in the first instance to perform the contract requirements.
With respect to Spectrum's performance of the
On this record, and in our view, there is no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of Arora's proposal for the past performance evaluation factor.
Arora also challenges the agency's evaluation of STG's record of past performance, contending that in crediting STG with the past performance of its proposed key personnel--its proposed program manager (Mr. X), its proposed corporate quality assurance/compliance coordinator (Ms. Y), and its proposed recruiter (Mr. Z)--the agency failed to tie [their] work to [STG] so that the quantity and quality of STG's past performance was evident. Arora's Supplemental Comments at 3. Arora goes on to state that, assuming that the employee[s'] work can be somehow tied to [STG], the agency must, as required by the RFP, examine the age of the previous/current contracts, the range of labor categories provided, the clinical settings in which the past performance occurred, and the numbers of personnel provided, giving greater consideration to past performance that is more relevant to the RFP and assessing the risk to the Government of future non-performance of solicitation requirements by the offeror.
Contrary to Arora's position, the record shows that the agency, in fact, evaluated STG's past performance in accordance with the terms of the RFP. In this regard, for each of the contracts listed by STG, including the ones where STG was credited with the past performance of its proposed key personnel (where the RFP allowed an offeror to demonstrate its past performance based on the prior experience of corporate officials),[5] the agency considered the age of the contracts, the range of labor categories provided, and the number and types of radiology personnel provided in each particular clinical setting.[6]
For example, STG's first reference was for services performed by its proposed program manager, Mr. X, at Lackland Air Force Base in
In addition, in assigning a very low risk past performance rating to STG's proposal, the agency considered STG's past performance record--both STG's own past performance and the past performance of its proposed key personnel--and concluded that the firm demonstrated its experience in filling all of the required labor categories within the required timeframes based on providing services that were relevant or closely matched to those services required under the current RFP; the agency also favorably commented on STG's expedited response to the Global War on Terrorism requirements. On this record, we conclude that the agency reasonably evaluated STG's proposal in accordance with the past performance requirements of the RFP.
In conclusion, where the agency reasonably evaluated proposals in accordance with the terms of the RFP, we have no basis to question the agency's decision to award the contract to STG, the firm whose higher technically rated, lower priced proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government.
The protest is denied.[8]
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] Under the RFP, there were 10 radiology support labor categories, as follows: radiology registered nurses, magnetic resonance imaging technologists, computed tomography technologists, ultrasound technologists, vascular (angiography) technologists, mammography technologists, nuclear medicine technologists, diagnostic radiology technologists, dosimetrists, and radiation and chief radiation therapists.
[2] In the event that an offeror listed more than five contracts, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate only the first five contracts listed. In addition, we note that while past performance and experience are separate concepts, the contemporaneous evaluation and source selection record uses these terms interchangeably.
[3] The management planning and market research evaluation factor required the offeror to demonstrate its contract management capabilities, including a discussion of its corporate personnel (their qualifications and experience and how these things would contribute to successful contract operations) and their responsibilities in terms of contract start-up and the ongoing administration of key functional areas, for example, recruitment, retention, and scheduling.
[4] The adjectival ratings that could be assigned to the technical evaluation factors included the following: very low risk, low risk, moderate risk, substantial risk, and unknown risk. As relevant here, and as reflected in the contemporaneous evaluation documentation, for past performance, the very low risk rating assigned to STG's proposal meant that the agency believed that there was a high probability of successful contract performance by STG. In contrast, the [deleted] rating assigned to Arora's proposal, i.e., going in the direction of a low risk or very low risk rating, meant that the agency believed that there was an equal probability of successful or unsuccessful performance by Arora.
[5] Relying on the corporate officials language in the RFP, as quoted above, the agency states that the RFP permitted an offeror to submit information on its proposed key personnel for the agency's consideration in the evaluation of the offeror's past performance. While we think it would have been better for the RFP to have used the term key personnel, see Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iii), rather than corporate officials, the agency explained that it recognizes the mobility of the modern day workforce and, with respect to the healthcare field in particular, that personnel often relocate due to new contract awards, resulting in a former contractor's personnel bringing extensive experience to another contractor. Supplemental Agency Report,
[6] The contracts listed by Arora and STG, as well as the other relevant information considered by the agency, involved efforts performed within the relevant timeframe.
[7] In the course of developing the protest record, our Office requested, and the agency provided, a labor category tally for each of STG's listed contracts based on the information included in the contemporaneous evaluation record. (This tally was consistent with the tally provided by the agency in the contemporaneous evaluation record for each of Arora's listed contracts.)
[8] Arora has raised some collateral issues that we have considered and find to be without merit; these collateral issues do not warrant detailed analysis or discussion.