BNUMBER: B-280978.3; B-280978.4
DATE: January 27, 1999
TITLE: The Arora Group, Inc., B-280978.3; B-280978.4, January 27,
1999
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:The Arora Group, Inc.
File: B-280978.3; B-280978.4
Date:January 27, 1999
Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, for the
protester.
Johnathan Bailey, Esq., Theodore M. Bailey, P.C., for Professional
Performance Development Group, Inc., an intervenor.
Maj. David Newsome, Jr., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal is
denied where review of record demonstrates that the evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors.
2. Cost/technical tradeoff was reasonable where agency considered the
costs and technical merits of each proposal in deciding that the
awardee's proposal represented the best value to the government.
DECISION
The Arora Group, Inc. protests the evaluation of its proposal under
request for proposals (RFP) No. DADA10-98-R-0014, issued by the U.S.
Army Medical Command for occupational health services.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued to procure occupational health services at Federal
Occupational Health Centers (FOH) and Wellness and Fitness Centers,
provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity
contract. The RFP, at sections M.2.5.2. and M.3, stated that
proposals would be evaluated against the following factors and
subfactors:
(1) Technical Quality ([based on an] Oral Presentation and
documentation)
(A) Management Capability
(B) Recruitment and Retention (including Compensation Plans,
descriptions and Employee handbook)
(C) Employee/Subcontractor Qualifications
(2) Contractor Quality Control Plan
(3) Past and Present Performance
(4) Cost/Price
The solicitation also provided that the contract would be awarded on
the basis of the best value to the government, with price worth
significantly less than nonprice factors in the award decision. RFP sec.
M.2.5, M.3. Eleven offerors submitted proposals, which were evaluated
by a technical evaluation team (TET). Each member of the team first
assigned a numerical score between -10 and +10 to each proposal for
each factor and subfactor. Agency Report, Oct. 2, 1998, at 3. The
evaluators then reached a consensus score for each factor and
subfactor, and a total score which was weighted based on the relative
importance of the factors and subfactors. Following the evaluation,
the proposals of Professional Performance Development Group (PPDG) and
a second offeror were rated superior, with scores of 8.3 and 8.5,
respectively, while Arora's proposal, with a score of 1.7, was rated
acceptable. Contracting Officer's Statement, at 2 (submitted in
connection with B-280978). The agency awarded the contract to PPDG
after determining that its proposal represented the best value to the
government. Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 4.
Arora challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the
technical quality and quality control factors, as well as the
cost\technical tradeoff.
When a protester challenges an agency's evaluation of its proposal, we
will examine the evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes
and regulations. EBA Eng'g Inc., B-275818, Mar. 31, 1997, 97-1 CPD para.
127 at 5. We find that the evaluation of Arora's proposal met this
standard.
TECHNICAL QUALITY
Management Capability
Under the management capability subfactor of technical quality, the
evaluators criticized Arora's proposal because they found it did not
provide a discussion of specific management techniques, tools and
practices to ensure quality and timeliness of services, as
specifically required by RFP sec. L.22, at L-22.[1] More specifically,
the agency found that, while the proposal generally discussed how
Arora's management practices were consistent with the American Nursing
Association and Joint Commission and listed broad objectives (such as
complete FOH mission support, delivery of responsive services, and
achievement of client satisfaction), the proposal did not provide
specific practices to achieve those objectives. TET Chairperson
Statements, Nov. 10, 1998, at 1; Dec. 3, 1998, at 1. With respect to
management techniques, the evaluators noted that Arora proposed an
interdisciplinary quality team that would hold weekly teleconferences.
The agency found, however, that this technique was focused only on
problem identification, and did not demonstrate how Arora would ensure
the timeliness and quality of all services. Moreover, the agency
questioned the effectiveness of the teleconferences given that they
would require participation by more than 50 individuals. Id. The
agency was also concerned because Arora's proposal failed to discuss
techniques to assess or evaluate provider competencies, subcontract
management, or maintenance of a backup relief pool or management of
planned and unplanned employee absences. Id.
Arora argues that the criticisms in this area were unreasonable
because its proposal did discuss specific management tools to ensure
quality and timeliness of service, and the proposed weekly
teleconferences in fact would not be unduly labor intensive. In
addition, Arora asserts that its proposal did address techniques to
assess work performance, as well as subcontract management,
maintenance of a backup relief pool, and management of planned and
unplanned absences.
The agency reasonably downgraded Arora's proposal. First, the record
shows, and Arora does not dispute, that its proposal discussed
management practices and objectives only in general terms, without
discussing how the practices would be implemented. Oral Presentation
Outline, at 20-21. Second, with respect to management techniques,
whether or not teleconferencing is termed labor intensive, we see
nothing unreasonable in the Army's concern that a weekly
teleconference involving 50 individuals (including nurse program
coordinators, nurse coordinators, wellness\fitness center
coordinators, the contract administrator, and the director of
performance improvement) would be neither an efficient nor a
particularly effective process. Further, Arora has not refuted the
agency's finding that the teleconferences as proposed generally would
be limited to problem identification, and by themselves would not
ensure overall quality and timeliness of services performed. Oral
Presentation Outline, at 20-21; Quality Control Plan, at 15-16.
Finally, while Arora's proposal mentions subcontract management,
monitoring employee performance, and management of planned and
unplanned absences, the discussions are very limited. For example,
the proposal discusses a yearly performance appraisal for employees,
but does not discuss how employee performance will be monitored on a
daily basis. Oral Presentation Outline, at 25, Quality Control Plan,
at 21-25. Similarly, the proposal mentions that the program
coordinator will handle unscheduled absences, but does not provide any
specifics other than that a relief pool will be available. Oral
Presentation Outline, at 25; Quality Control Plan, at 18.
The agency also criticized Arora's proposal under the management
capability subfactor for stating that the contracting officer's
representative (COR) would work with Arora's contract administrator,
and that the contracting officer (CO) would work with Arora's
administrative director. The agency found that this approach
reflected a lack of understanding of the team approach that is
required on this contract. TET Chairperson Statements, Nov. 10, at 2;
Dec. 3, at 2. Arora argues that its approach is reasonable because
the individuals in charge of administrative matters for the agency and
the protester (the CO and the administrative director), and the
personnel in charge of day-to-day activities (the COR and the contract
administrator) would work together. Arora asserts that its proposal
of an interdisciplinary quality team, and a corporate quality
management board also reflected its understanding of the importance of
a team approach to perform the contract.
There is nothing unreasonable in the agency's evaluation of Arora's
proposed working relationships. In this regard, as the agency has
explained, it is not always possible to clearly differentiate between
administrative matters and daily activities; for this reason, the
agency found that Arora's proposal of specific jobs for the contract
administrator and the administrative director--without some
recognition of the need for flexibility--could impede performance of
the contract in cases where one would have to perform a function not
generally assigned to it. Similarly, even if the protester is correct
that its proposal reflected some understanding of the need for an
overall team approach to the contract, we see nothing unreasonable in
the agency's conclusion that the mere proposal of teams to address
certain areas was not sufficient to demonstrate an adequate
understanding in this area.
Recruitment and Retention
Under the recruitment and retention subfactor under the technical
capability factor, offerors were required to explain the method they
would use to recruit personnel to ensure that services would commence
on the date set forth in the solicitation, and to describe a
recruitment and replacement plan demonstrating how required staffing
would be maintained throughout the life of the contract. RFP at L.22,
at L-21. The evaluators criticized Arora's proposal under this
subfactor because the solicitation represents an increase from
previous contracts in the number of sites at which services will be
provided, but Arora did not provide evidence of an organized,
systematic effort to recruit incumbent staff by area and site. TET
Chairperson Statements, Nov. 10, at 2; Dec. 3, at 2.
Arora maintains that the agency's concern with Arora's ability to hire
incumbent personnel ignores the fact that it already is the incumbent
at many sites. However, the agency reasonably could be concerned with
Arora's ability to recruit personnel at the sites where it is not the
incumbent. Arora also notes that at the oral presentation it
discussed recruitment logistics, introduced the person in charge of
personnel recruitment, and provided a detailed time line of its
strategy. However, while this information provided some detail
regarding recruiting, it did not address the agency's specific
concerns regarding the lack of evidence of a systematic recruiting
scheme. For example, Arora's proposal did not address anticipated
problems, how incumbent staff would be approached, or the role that
key personnel would have in any recruitment effort. Oral Presentation
Outline at 27-29; TET Chairperson Statements, Nov. 10, at 2; Dec. 3,
at 2. There thus is no basis to question the evaluation in this area.
Employees/Subcontractor Qualifications
Under the employee/subcontractor qualifications subfactor under the
technical capability factor, offerors were advised to explain their
understanding of the personnel qualifications required to provide
services under the contract by both labor category and specific
position. To further illustrate, the solicitation provided:
For example, the offeror may describe the qualification
requirements for occupational health nurses as a labor category
group by identifying the requirements of all nurses required by
the solicitation. The offeror must then elaborate on those
instances where the requirements differ for specific labor
categories, for example Certified Occupational Health Nurse or
Occupational Health Nurse, Case Manager. The offeror may discuss
the types of individuals they will recruit for these positions;
for example, nurse coordinators with management experience and
demonstrated personnel skills; or wellness/fitness
personnel certified by the YMCA, and coordinators certified by
the ACSM.
RFP at L.22, at L-22. The evaluators criticized Arora's proposal
because it recited employee qualifications in accordance with the
statement of work, but did not discuss skills which would contribute
to the performance of tasks and the provision of quality services.
For example, Arora proposed certain personnel for supervisory
positions, but did not discuss whether the positions would be filled
by individuals with supervisory experience. TET Chairman Statements,
Nov. 10, at 2; Dec. 3, at 2.
Arora argues that it was improper for the agency to downgrade its
proposal for not describing skills greater than the minimum required
by the RFP. This argument is without merit, however, since the
solicitation specifically instructed offerors to elaborate on the
individuals who would be hired for specific positions where more than
the minimum skills identified in the solicitation would be required to
adequately perform the services. The evaluation was consistent with
this requirement. Arora asserts that, in any case, it did provide
detailed resumes for its key personnel, which described their
supervisory experience. However, Arora proposed some nonkey personnel
(such as site coordinators) as supervisors, without indicating what
supervisory experience these individuals had, despite instructions in
the RFP to do so. Accordingly, we have no basis to question the
evaluation in this area.
QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
For the quality control plan factor, the RFP, at L.22, at L-17,
advised offerors to describe the methods, processes and tools they
would use to ensure the quality of services provided, including the
specific criteria/data for evaluation, the thresholds that will
trigger corrective action, the process for identifying and correcting
deficiencies and the process for overall supervision of the services.
Offerors were also advised that the FOH quality assurance tools
described in FOH Clinical Product Line Occupational Health Center
Policy M-26 and Wellness/Fitness Center Policy 0-10 were required key
elements of their processes.
Arora challenges the downgrading of its proposal in several areas
under this factor, including the agency's finding that (1) Arora
included policies M-26 and 0-10 in its quality control plan, but did
not discuss how these policies would be utilized or how they otherwise
related to the overall plan; and (2) while Arora identified relevant
quality control issues, the thresholds it identified to trigger
correction did not demonstrate a proactive approach. TET Chairperson
Statements, Nov. 10, at 3; Dec. 3, at 2-3.
The evaluation in these areas was reasonable. While Arora argues that
it did discuss how the M-26 and 0-10 policies fit within its quality
control plan, our review shows that Arora only generally stated that
the policies would be used for an annual review. Oral Presentation
Outline, at 21; Quality Control Plan, at 29-30. The proposal contains
no further discussion regarding how this review or the policies
themselves relate to the overall plan. With respect to the
identification of quality control issues, Arora asserts that the
agency's criticism is unreasonable because the triggers it identified
included any complaint, operational deficiency or unexpected closing.
However, the agency downgraded this approach on the ground that it did
not focus on identifying potential problems and taking action before
problems occurred. For example, the agency was looking for an
approach that would take action to avoid unexpected facility closings,
not one that would take action after the closing occurred. TET
Chairperson Statements, Nov. 10, at 3; Dec. 3, at 3. The agency
therefore reasonably downgraded Arora's proposal.[2]
COST/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF
Arora maintains that the cost/technical tradeoff was improper because
the agency did not specifically compare Arora's proposal to the
awardee's higher technically rated, higher-cost ([DELETED]) proposal
in making its best value determination. The argument is without
merit. The award document lists the costs of all proposals and
specifically discusses the merits and deficiencies of the proposals
with respect to nonprice factors; in other words, the agency was fully
aware of the protester's and awardee's prices, as well as the relative
merits of the technical proposals, when the tradeoff was made. Price
Negotiation Memorandum, at 2-4. Against this backdrop, the agency
clearly did not consider the protester's proposal the best value to
the government. Technical factors were significantly more important
than price in the award decision, and Arora's proposal received only
1.7 out of 10 points, which ranked it only fifth among the six
acceptable proposals. We conclude that the agency's tradeoff decision
encompassed consideration of the price and technical merit of Arora's
proposal, and was reasonable.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Arora also challenges the evaluators' conclusion that the
discussion of its overall supervision process was unclear as to how
program coordinators would be managed and supervised, as well as their
criticism, under the recruitment and retention subfactor, that Arora
did not clearly address how employees of the incumbent contractor
would be approached and educated on benefits. The information on
which these arguments are based was provided to Arora as part of a
written debriefing on September 1, 1998. Since Arora did not protest
these issues until October 19, they are untimely and will not be
considered. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1998).
2. Arora also complains that the evaluation scoring of its and the
awardee's proposals was inconsistent. Specifically, Arora notes that,
while it received a score of 3 (out of 10) points for the quality
control factor based on a criticism that reporting requirements
between the site and program coordinators was unclear, the awardee,
with an almost identical criticism, received a score of 7 points.
This argument is without merit. As discussed, Arora's score for the
quality control factor reflected additional criticisms--it did not
adequately address FOH policies M-26 and 0-10 and did not propose a
proactive approach on quality control issues. Thus, the different
scoring of the proposals was reasonable.