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.