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.