TITLE:  Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., B-279561.2; B-279561.3; B-279651; B-279651.2, July 6, 1998
BNUMBER:  B-279561.2; B-279561.3; B-279651; B-279651.2
DATE:  July 6, 1998
**********************************************************************
Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., B-279561.2; B-279561.3;
B-279651; B-279651.2, July 6, 1998

Decision

Matter of: Professional Performance Development Group, Inc.

File: B-279561.2; B-279561.3; B-279651; B-279651.2

Date: July 6, 1998

Theodore Bailey, Esq., and Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Theodore M. Bailey,
P.C., for the protester.

Col. Nicolas P. Retson, Lt. Col. Samuel T. Stevenson, and Robert D. Hamel,
Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.

Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Discussions adequately led protester to agency's concern about an extra
layer of management arising from a proposal for occupational health care
services, which offered a corporate-level coordinator in addition to a
required nurse program coordinator, where only one of the positions was
required by the solicitation, and the discussion question asked for a
discussion of the process and the responsibilities of both positions.

2. Protester is not an interested party eligible to protest the evaluation
of the awardee's proposal where it would not be next in line for award if
its protest of the evaluation were sustained.

DECISION

Professional Performance Development Group, Inc. (PPDG) protests the award
of contracts to OMV Medical, Inc. under request for proposal (RFP) No.
DADA10-98-R-0002 (RFP 0002) and RFP No. DADA10-98-R-0003 (RFP 0003), issued
by the Department of the Army for nonpersonal occupational health care
services for federal employees at existing and future Federal Occupational
Health (FOH) provision sites in several states per each solicitation. PPDG
alleges that discussions held with PPDG were inadequate and that the
evaluation of OMV's proposal was unreasonable.

We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part.

The RFPs, issued on September 30, 1997 as section 8(a) set-asides,
contemplated awards of fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contracts for a base
period with 4 option years. The RFPs, at sections M.2.5 and M.2.5.2, stated
a best value evaluation scheme with the following four factors: (1) past and
present performance; (2) contractor quality control plan; (3) technical
quality (oral presentation); and (4) price/cost. The RFPs stated the
relative weights of these factors as:

Factors 1 and 2 are equal and, individually, are less important than factor
3, and factors 1, 2, and 3 are more important than factor 4. The government
is interested in proposals that offer value in meeting the requirements -
performance and technical quality with acceptable risk at a fair and
reasonable price. Factor 4, however, could become the determinative
selection factor if technical quality proposals are determined to be
substantially equal, or if a proposal deemed superior in technical quality
is determined not to be worth the high cost premium.

Eleven offerors submitted proposals in response to each RFP. The agency
evaluated proposals and established a competitive range of six proposals
submitted by the same six offerors under each RFP.

PPDG's proposal, which was included with OMV's proposal in the competitive
range, received an overall "good" rating.1 [1] Among the weaknesses found in
PPDG's proposal was its quality control plan, which was scored/rated as
81/good. The specific concerns with the quality control plan included
confusing job titles and responsibilities, an organization chart which did
not recognize the contracting officer's representative's (COR) functions
related to the wellness/fitness program, and an unnecessary layer of
corporate-level management (i.e., corporate-level coordinators) between the
nurse program coordinators and the top of the corporate structure.

The competitive range offerors received written discussions. The discussion
letter, dated January 5, 1998, to PPDG stated the following:

The quality control plan does not clearly state who does what; seems to
confuse job titles and responsibilities. The organizational chart does not
recognize COR functions in relationship to wellness/fitness program. Discuss
process and responsibilities of clinical coordinators at corporate level and
nurse program coordinators.

PPDG responded by supplementing its quality control plan with more
information about staff positions and responsibilities, and an explanation
of the COR functions in relation to the program. It also described the role
of the corporate-level coordinators as providing program coordinators with
an "additional resource" for addressing contract concerns.

The agency reevaluated the proposal revisions submitted by the competitive
range offerors. In the case of PPDG, its response adequately addressed most
of the agency's concerns. However, PPDG's response essentially confirmed to
the evaluators that the corporate-level coordinators proposed by PPDG were
superfluous layers of management. Under the quality control plan factor,
PPDG's score was increased to 88, although its rating remained the same.
PPDG's revised proposal received an overall score/rating of 92.5/excellent.

Subsequently, the agency sought clarification from OMV and one other
offeror. Upon review, the Army determined that these communications might
have constituted an additional round of discussions with only two offerors.
As a result, on February 26, all offerors were notified that discussions
were re-opened and that offerors had the opportunity to submit additional
information. The Army did not identify additional concerns or request
specific information from any offeror, other than requesting an extension of
offers through March 31. No offerors expressed interest in submitting
further proposal revisions and discussions were closed later that day. The
notice announcing the close of discussions requested either final proposal
revisions, or a statement of no proposal changes be submitted by the
following day. PPDG's response stated that it did not wish to further revise
its proposal.

The final evaluation results were as follows:
                                Price2 [2] for
 Offeror     Overall            RFP               Price for RFP
             Score/Rating                         0003
                                0002

 A           93.15/excellent    $19,459,517       $18,722,585

 B           92.73/excellent    18,969,675        18,351,189

 PPDG        92.5/excellent     19,176,207        17,926,986

 OMV         88.83/good         16,388,658        16,236,257

 C           87.38/good         17,298,638        16,998,704

 D           86.2/good          17,621,529        16,871,631

The agency determined that the score difference of 6.95 points between the
highest-rated and lowest-rated proposals did not represent a significant
difference in overall technical quality; thus, all six proposals were
considered technically equal. Consequently, OMV's lowest-priced proposals on
the two RFPs, the prices of which had been found fair and reasonable, were
determined to represent the best value to the government. The Army awarded a
contract to OMV under RFP 0002 on March 11, and under RFP 0003 on March 16.
PPDG's protests followed. The Army has suspended contract performance under
both contracts.

PPDG first alleges that it received inadequate and/or misleading discussions
on the corporate-level coordinator positions. PPDG contends that the initial
evaluation clearly found that these positions were an unnecessary extra
layer of management, but the discussion question requested only further
discussion of the positions. PPDG contends that this discussion question did
not convey the true concern of the agency and misled PPDG into providing
only additional information about the positions. It alleges that, had it
understood the agency's concern, PPDG would have eliminated the positions in
question, which would have lowered its price and raised its technical score.

Discussions are legally adequate if offerors are advised of the weaknesses,
excesses, and deficiencies in their proposals. Renaissant Dev. Corp.,
B-260947, Aug. 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 58 at 5; DynCorp, et al., B-257037.2 et
al., Dec. 15, 1994, 95-1 CPD para. 34
at 14. Although discussions should be as specific as practicable, E.L. Hamm
& Assocs., Inc., B-250932, Feb. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 156 at 4, discussions
need not be all encompassing nor overly specific in describing the extent of
the agency's concerns, but rather must generally lead offerors into the
areas of their proposals which require amplification or correction without
being misleading. Renaissant Dev. Corp., supra; DynCorp, et al., supra.

Here, the discussion question posed to PPDG identified as an area of concern
the process and responsibilities of the corporate-level coordinators and the
nurse program coordinators. The agency's specific request for discussion of
process was stated in addition to a general concern that the titles and
responsibilities of all positions under the quality control plan lacked
clarity and were confusing. Since the corporate-level coordinator positions
were not solicited by the RFPs and the protester's response to the
communication clearly identified the position as an extra management
resource, we think that the request for discussion of "process" concerning
these extra positions, particularly in association with the required nurse
program coordinator position, was a reasonable notice of the agency's area
of concern. Discussions here were thus meaningful and not misleading.3 [3]

PPDG also alleges that OMV's price was too low to reflect realistic staff
compensation rates, which was a stated consideration under the price factor,
and that OMV's final proposal did not address other price concerns
identified by the agency. Given that we have denied PPDG's protest of the
adequacy of discussions and PPDG has not otherwise challenged the evaluation
of its proposal, we find that PPDG is not an eligible interested party to
maintain a protest of the evaluation of OMV's proposal. This is so because
there are intervening, technically equal, lower-priced offerors that would
be in line for award if OMV's proposal were rejected, and PPDG does not
challenge the evaluation of these intervening offerors.

Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of
1984, 31 U.S.C.A. sect.sect. 3551-56 (West Supp. 1998), only an "interested party"
may protest a federal procurement. That is, a protester must be an actual or
prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the
award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. Bid Protest
Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.0(a) (1998). Determining whether a party is
interested involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the
nature of issues raised, the benefit of relief sought by the protester, and
the party's status in relation to the procurement. Black Hills Refuse Serv.,
B-228470, Feb. 16, 1988, 88-1 CPD para. 151 at 2-3. A protester is not an
interested party where it would not be in line for contract award were its
protest to be sustained. ECS Composites, Inc., B-235849.2, Jan. 3, 1990,
90-1 CPD para. 7.

Here, the agency determined that all proposals were technically equal, so
the selection decision under the stated award scheme was based on price.
Under RFP 0002, there are three technically equal, lower-priced proposals in
line for award behind OMV's proposal, and ahead of PPDG's proposal. Under
RFP 0003, there are two technically equal, lower-priced proposals ahead of
PPDG's proposal. Since PPDG has not challenged any of these intervening
proposals that would precede the protester's proposal in eligibility for
award under this solicitation, the protester lacks the direct economic
interest required to maintain a protest of OMV's evaluation.

The protests are denied in part and dismissed in part.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. The rating/point scale was as follows:

Excellent - 91-100
Good - 81-90
Poor - 61-80
Unsatisfactory - 0-60.

2. These prices are the proposed prices including applicable escalation as
proposed by each offeror. To the extent PPDG initially alleged that the
agency incorrectly calculated its price, the agency's basis for calculating
prices was disclosed in the agency report, and PPDG does not challenge the
price-plus-escalation calculations.

3. To the extent PPDG alleges that the Army should have advised PPDG of the
agency's continuing concern about the corporate-level coordinators when
discussions were reopened, once PPDG received adequate discussions on this
area of concern, the agency was not required to advise PPDG of continuing
concerns during successive rounds of discussions. See Speedy Food Serv.,
Inc., B-274406, Dec. 9, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 218 at 4; Rockwell Int'l Corp.,
B-261953.2, B-261953.6, Nov. 22, 1995, 96-1 CPD para. 34 at 13.