BNUMBER:  B-271777
DATE:  July 24, 1996
TITLE:  Triple P Services, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Triple P Services, Inc.

File:     B-271777

Date:July 24, 1996

Theodore M. Bailey, P.C., Esq., for the protester.
Ralph B. Wahlberg for Teltara, Inc., an intervenor.
Captain Philip T. McCaffrey, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Ralph O. White, Jr., Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Contention that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal and 
impermissibly made award on the basis of initial proposals is denied 
where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the 
protester's proposal was unacceptable as submitted, and appropriately 
selected the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal for award, 
as the solicitation indicated it would.

DECISION

Triple P Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Teltara, 
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT02-95-R-0005, issued by 
the Department of the Army for hospital housekeeping and grounds 
maintenance services at the Noble Army Community Hospital, Fort 
McClellan, Alabama.  Triple P argues that the Army unreasonably found 
its proposal unacceptable in four of five evaluated areas, and 
improperly made award on the basis of initial proposals. 

We deny the protest.

The RFP for these services anticipated award to the offeror submitting 
the lowest-priced technically acceptable offer.  Section M of the RFP 
set forth five evaluation factors:  (1) staffing plan; (2) prior 
experience in hospital custodial services; 
(3) orientation training; (4) quality control plan; and (5) safety 
plan.  Section M also reserved the right to award on the basis of 
initial proposals, without discussions.

By the closing date of November 28, 1995, the Army received 11 
proposals.  Upon conclusion of the evaluations, four proposals were 
rated acceptable; none were rated susceptible to being made 
acceptable; and the remaining seven, including Triple P's proposal, 
were rated unacceptable.  Based on these results, the Army decided not 
to hold discussions, and awarded to the offeror submitting the 
lowest-priced acceptable offer, Teltara Inc. on March 22, 1996.  
Because Triple P's proposal was rated unacceptable, it was not 
considered for award, even though its price ($1,091,196.51) was lower 
than Teltara's ($1,146,648).  Upon learning that its lower-priced 
proposal was not selected for award, Triple P filed this protest. 

Triple P challenges its evaluation in each of the four areas where the 
Army rated its proposal unacceptable--i.e., staffing plan; orientation 
training; quality control plan; and safety plan.  Triple P also 
contends that any flaws in its proposal could easily have been 
remedied with discussions.  

In considering a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, 
we will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment 
was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation criteria and 
applicable statutes and regulations.  ESCO, Inc., 66 Comp. Gen. 404 
(1987), 87-1 CPD  para.  450.  Based on our review of the record here, we 
see no basis for concluding that the evaluation was unreasonable.  

For example, the RFP at paragraph C.1.2.3.1 required the contractor's 
employees to complete orientation training covering housekeeping for 
medical treatment facilities, including training in infection control, 
within 2 weeks prior to beginning work.  An exception to this 
requirement was that employees who had previously been trained were 
permitted to complete retraining within 2 weeks after starting work.  
Triple P's proposal stated only that new employees would receive 
training within 14 days of the employees' starting dates.

The Army evaluators concluded that Triple P's proposal failed to meet 
the RFP's requirements for orientation training and rated the proposal 
unacceptable in this area.  The evaluators explained that housekeepers 
"must be trained in and familiar with [i]nfection [c]ontrol 
procedures, [b]lood [b]orne [p]athogens, [u]niversal [p]recautions, 
[p]atient [c]onfidentiality, [and] handling of medical waste . . . 
BEFORE they begin work in the hospital environment."  According to the 
Army, the proposal was unacceptable because it only addressed training 
for new employees, and even then, failed to commit to completion of 
such training before placing new employees in the hospital 
environment.  In responding to the Army, Triple P points out that it 
intends to offer employment to the housekeeping staff of the incumbent 
contractor, and that the incumbent employees could be trained after 
beginning work.  

Despite Triple P's intent to hire the incumbent workforce, there is no 
guarantee that the entire workforce will accept Triple P's offer of 
employment.  Thus, the Army was correct in its criticism that the 
proposal offers no recognition of the additional training requirements 
in this critical area if Triple P must supplement the existing 
workforce with new hires.  In addition, we note that Triple P's 
proposal appears inconsistent with the RFP's requirements for training 
new hires--i.e., Triple P anticipates training of new employees within 
14 days of beginning work, rather than 14 days before.  As the Army 
explains, there are numerous hazards for the employees--as well as for 
hospital patients and visitors--arising from untrained hospital 
personnel.  These include hazards arising from failure to properly 
disinfect all areas, failure to properly handle bloody materials, and 
failure to properly handle and dispose of needles and other sharp, and 
potentially infectious, hospital instruments.  Given these reasonable 
concerns, and the clear importance of this area--concisely 
communicated by its inclusion in section M as one of the five critical 
areas wherein a proposal must be acceptable--we see no basis to 
question the evaluation of the protester's proposal under this factor.

Moreover, the record shows numerous other problems with the proposal.  
First, the proposal was filled with typographical errors and/or 
misstatements--i.e., the proposal contained numerous inappropriate 
references suggesting that portions of the document had been lifted 
from other proposals; these include references to different 
governmental entities (the Air Force, Fort Bragg), other Army 
hospitals (Lyster Army Medical Center), and hazards related to 
providing food services, none of which were applicable to the work 
here.  The proposal also contained instances of seriously flawed 
analysis of the solicited requirements, such as aspects of its safety 
plan that appear to be wholly inappropriate for hospital maintenance 
employees.[1]  Thus, Triple P's initial proposal could not be 
accepted.

With respect to Triple P's contention that the agency should have held 
discussions to permit it to correct any deficiencies in its proposal, 
there is generally no requirement that an agency hold discussions when 
the solicitation advises offerors that award may be made without 
discussions.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.610(a)(3); Infotec 
Dev., Inc., B-258198 et al., Dec. 27, 1994, 95-1 CPD  para.  52.  Given that 
the solicitation advised offerors of the possibility of award without 
discussions, and given our conclusion that the Army reasonably 
determined that Triple P's proposal was unacceptable as written, there 
was no requirement for the agency to hold discussions with Triple P.  
ACR Elecs., Inc., B-266201, Jan. 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  19.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. For example, the Army evaluators were incredulous at the proposal's 
direction to hospital maintenance workers to "[i]mmediately proceed to 
the fire" in the event of a fire alarm.  Nothing in the protester's 
comments causes us to conclude that the evaluators' concern was 
unfounded.