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.