BNUMBER: B-270706.2
DATE: June 18, 1996
TITLE: The Arora Group, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:The Arora Group, Inc.
File: B-270706.2
Date:June 18, 1996
Sudhir Arora for the protester.
Thomas J. Duffy, Esq., and Daria H. Rusyn, Esq., Department of the
Army, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Proposed award to the offeror with the highest technical evaluation
score is unobjectionable where record establishes that technical
evaluation of proposals was done in accordance with the evaluation
criteria and agency reasonably concluded that there were significant
distinctions between the protester's and proposed awardee's relevant
experience which led the agency to rate the proposed awardee higher
under that category.
DECISION
The Arora Group, Inc. protests the selection of Dr. Isis Hannallah for
award of a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DAHC35-95-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army for radiology
services. Arora alleges flaws in the agency's evaluation of both its
own and Hannallah's proposals, specifically referencing certain
advantages associated with its radiologists' subspecialty and post
graduate training.
We deny the protest.
Issued as a total small business set-aside, the RFP sought proposals
for two full-time radiologists to provide diagnostic radiology
services at DeWitt Army Community Hospital, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
The services will include diagnostic interpretation of radiologic
examinations, diagnostic consultation related to diagnostic imaging,
and the full range of routine diagnostic and therapeutic work
performed by a board certified diagnostic radiologist. The RFP
anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period with
four 1-year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose
proposal was most advantageous to the government, price and other
factors considered. Technical merit was considered more important
than price, but the RFP advised that if the technical scores of two or
more offerors were the same, then price would be the deciding factor.
Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two technical factors
listed in descending order of importance: experience and
understanding of the requirement. The experience evaluation factor
(which was substantially more important than understanding of the
requirement factor) is comprised of two subfactors--the experience of
the proposed radiologists, and industry and government contracts
performed during the past 2 years.
Six timely proposals were received and after an initial evaluation,
the agency included all six proposals in the competitive range.
Technical issues were raised with each offeror during several rounds
of discussions following which best and final offers (BAFOs) were
requested and received. Evaluation of BAFOs resulted in Hannallah's
BAFO receiving a perfect technical score of 100 out of a possible
100 points, and Arora's BAFO a technical score of 98 points. Each
firm's identical BAFO prices were determined to be reasonable and
realistic. In making the selection, the contracting officer, as
source selection authority, noted that Hannallah's proposal reflected
superior technical merit, as indicated by its score, which was the
highest assigned. She concurred with the evaluators' determination
that Hannallah's proposal was superior to Arora's because its proposed
radiologists have the most general and diverse radiology experience
(as compared to Arora's more specialized radiology experience) and
that, as the incumbent, Hannallah possessed the most relevant past
performance among the offerors. The contracting officer determined
that Hannallah's proposal represented the best value to the government
and selected that firm for award. After receiving notice of the
selection, Arora filed this protest.[1]
Arora argues that in judging the relative merit of both its own and
Hannallah's proposal, the Army improperly evaluated the offerors'
experience. According to Arora, its proposal should have been
considered superior given the experience, board certification and
subspecialty fellowship training Arora's radiologists possess and the
firm's greater experience in providing contract radiology services to
the government.
The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily a matter within the
contracting agency's discretion since it must bear the burden of any
difficulties resulting from a defective evaluation. Sherikon, Inc.;
Technology Management & Analysis Corp., B-256306 et al., June 7,
1994, 94-1 CPD para. 358. We will examine an evaluation to ensure that it
was reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria.
Our review of the record here provides no basis for objecting to the
evaluation of Arora's level of experience.
Here, while the record shows that the agency recognized the
subspecialty fellowship training in radiology which Arora's
radiologists possess, it reports that the evaluators did not regard
this subspecialty training a significant discriminator under the
experience evaluation factor. This assessment was based on the
resumes submitted by each offeror which show that Hannallah's proposed
radiologists have more direct radiology experience in performing the
tasks required in this solicitation whereas Arora's proposed
radiologists' experience is heavily weighted in one subspecialty area
(such as neuroradiology) which was not particularly relevant to
performance of this contract for more routine services. For example,
each of Hannallah's radiologists are board certified, have additional
fellowship training in general radiology (although less than Arora's),
and substantially more years of experience in the day-to-day practice
required in a general radiology department. In comparison, Arora's
board certified radiologists have less recent experience in general
radiology and more specialized training such as Dr. Arora, who has
subspecialty training in neuroradiology, and has practiced in that
subspecialty area for many years. The contracting officer and
evaluators simply concluded that Hannallah's proposed radiologists had
more direct experience in general radiology and the day-to-day
practice of running a general radiology department. The record, which
includes a comparison of the personnel proposed, supports this
conclusion. Notwithstanding its general claim that the credentials
its radiologists possess are the best of all the competitors, Arora
has not identified anything erroneous or improper in the agency's
evaluation of its or Hannallah's experience. Consequently, we have no
basis to question the evaluation of either firm's experience as
unreasonable.
Arora also contends that the agency improperly failed to make
qualitative distinctions between the competing proposals under the
past experience subfactor inasmuch as the protester has performed
under more radiology services contracts compared to Hannallah. We
disagree. The RFP here sought proposals demonstrating the offerors'
past experience under similar contracts during the past 2 years. The
record shows that the evaluators gave the maximum score possible under
this subfactor to Hannallah based on the fact that it had been the
incumbent for this contract, and thus had actually performed in the
areas of work outlined in the statement of work. We see nothing
unreasonable with the agency's approach since Hannallah's experience
was in performing precisely the type of work contemplated by the RFP.
See Fidelity Technologies Corp., B-258944, Feb. 22, 1995, 95-1 CPD para.
112.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. In its original protest, Arora challenged the reasonableness of the
agency's evaluation of proposals. In response, the Army advised our
Office that the agency had evaluated the two proposals using an
unstated subfactor and reported that it would take corrective action
by re-evaluating the proposals without using the unstated subfactor.
We dismissed Arora's protest as academic in light of the corrective
action. However, the re-evaluation resulted in no change to
Hannallah's technical score; on the other hand, Arora's score
increased from 98 to 98.6 points. Thus, the contracting officer
again selected Hannallah for award and Arora then timely reinstated
its protest.