BNUMBER:  B-275784
DATE:  March 27, 1997
TITLE:  American Medical Professionals, Inc.

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

Matter of:American Medical Professionals, Inc.

File:     B-275784

Date:March 27, 1997

Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., for the protester.
James S. Ganther, Esq., for Seaborn Healthcare Services, an 
intervenor.
John R. Osing, Jr., Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Allegation that contracting agency improperly misled protester into 
raising its pricing over the course of the procurement is denied where 
the record shows that the protester was only asked to verify the 
pricing it had previously proposed; protester's determination to 
ignore that request and to instead raise its pricing in response 
reflects its own business judgment and no impropriety on the agency's 
part.

DECISION

American Medical Professionals, Inc. (AMP) protests the award of a 
contract to Seaborn Healthcare Services under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. N62645-96-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Navy, 
Naval Medical Logistics Command, for ultrasound technician services at 
the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia.  AMP chiefly argues 
that the Navy conducted inadequate discussions with the firm.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract for 
the provision of these services by two ultrasound technicians over 1 
base year, with up to 5 option years.  The technicians are required to 
perform their duties for 40 hours per week during normal business 
hours.  In addition, one technician is required to provide on-call 
services, on an as-needed basis, from the end of a given workday 
through the next morning.  Award would be made to the offeror 
submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer.[1]  

The Navy evaluated the 10 proposals it received and included 8 in the 
competitive range.  Two rounds of discussions were conducted, and two 
best and final offers (BAFO) were requested and received.  The 
proposals of six offerors were determined to be technically 
acceptable, including those of Seaborn and AMP.  Seaborn submitted the 
lowest price for both technicians, at $258,519 and $228,800, 
respectively.  AMP submitted the third low price for the first 
technician and the fourth low price for the second technician.  Award 
was made to Seaborn on December 17 and this protest followed.  AMP 
chiefly argues that the Navy failed to conduct meaningful discussions 
with the firm.

Agencies are required to conduct meaningful discussions with all 
offerors whose proposals are in the competitive range; this 
requirement is satisfied by advising them of weaknesses and 
deficiencies in their proposals which require amplification or 
correction and by affording them the opportunity to submit revised 
proposals.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.610(c)(2) and 
(5) (FAC 90-31); Ameriko, Inc., B-262029, Nov. 6, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  
208.     

In this case, the initial evaluation showed that AMP had submitted the 
same pricing for both the regular service hours and the on-call 
service hours.  This raised the concern that the firm had not 
considered the higher cost of providing on-call services--the Navy's 
experience with these contracts showed that on-call services were 
generally priced higher than services for regular hours.  The Navy's 
July 22 discussion letter stated: 

     "Your prices for on-call services are identical to your prices 
     for regular services.  Please verify your on-call services 
     pricing and provide evidence that you will be able to provide 
     on-call services for the prices proposed."

AMP's response did not verify the firm's on-call pricing or provide 
evidence of its ability to provide these services at the prices 
proposed.  Instead, AMP substantially lowered its on-call pricing with 
no explanation.  

Needless to say, this response did not allay the Navy's concern.  In 
addition, the contract specialist noted that AMP's proposed pricing 
for its regular services, which included cost loading, was lower than 
the pricing shown in the Navy's market survey, which did not include 
cost loading.  This raised the additional concern that AMP's direct 
labor compensation might be significantly lower than the market survey 
labor rate.  Consequently, the Navy's September 3 discussions letter 
to AMP stated:

     "1.  Your Base Period, Option I, and Option II prices appear low 
     in comparison to the market area salaries.  Please verify these 
     prices and provide evidence that you will be able to provide 
     services for the prices proposed.

      2.  Your prices for on-call services . . . are lower than your 
     prices for regular services.  Please verify your on-call services 
     and provide evidence that you will be able to provide on-call 
     services for the prices proposed."

AMP's response did not verify any of the firm's pricing or provide 
evidence of its ability to provide any of these services at its 
proposed prices.  Instead, AMP raised many of its prices and stated 
that they were "verified," with no further explanation.  AMP's on-call 
services pricing remained at or near its pricing for the regular 
services.

In view of AMP's response, the Navy's first BAFO request firm stated:

     "Your price[s] for on-call services . . . appear low.  While you 
     have verified your on-call service prices, you have not provided 
     evidence that you will be able to provide on-call services for 
     the prices proposed."

In its BAFO, AMP's on-call pricing remained at or near the pricing for 
its regular services.  However, for the first time, AMP provided the 
evidence repeatedly requested by the Navy.  AMP submitted 
certifications from its proposed technicians in which each stated that 
she would provide her on-call services at the proposed rates.  The 
Navy's second BAFO request made no mention of any pricing 
deficiencies, and AMP's second BAFO did not revise its pricing.

AMP alleges that the Navy improperly failed to advise it of the 
"central weakness" in its proposal--that it might not be able to 
provide personnel at its proposed prices.  This allegation reveals a 
lack of familiarity with the record.  There is no question but that 
this weakness, while present in AMP's initial and revised proposals, 
was resolved by the firm's BAFO submission of the above-discussed 
certificates from its proposed technicians.  Indeed, that AMP received 
meaningful discussions on this issue is evidenced by the fact that it 
submitted these certificates at the specific request of the Navy.   

In any event, it appears that AMP is actually alleging that it was 
improperly misled by the Navy during discussions into raising its 
pricing over the course of the procurement.  This allegation is 
without merit.  As indicated above, each and every discussion question 
merely asked AMP to verify its pricing and to provide evidence that it 
could provide services at those prices.  There is nothing misleading 
about these questions, and the fact that AMP chose to ignore the 
agency's requests and to raise its pricing instead reflects its 
business judgment and no impropriety on the part of the agency.  
Ameriko, Inc., supra; Crestmont Cleaning Serv. & Supply Co., Inc., et 
al., B-254486 et al., Dec. 22, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  336; Eagle Technology, 
Inc., B-236255, Nov. 16, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  468. 

As a final matter, AMP's contention that the contracting officer's 
repeated requests for verification of its pricing amount to an 
improper auction is similarly without merit.  Prohibited auction 
techniques include such actions as (1) indicating to an offeror a 
price it must meet in order to receive further consideration; (2) 
advising an offeror of its relative standing; and (3) furnishing 
information about other offerors' prices.  FAR  sec.  15.610(e)(2).  None 
of these techniques was present here.  Mil Colores, S.A., B-270208, 
Feb. 16, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  102.      

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Technical acceptability, not at issue here, would be determined 
based upon the documented professional and technical experience of the 
offered technicians.