TITLE:  Aliron International, Inc., B-285048.2, August 3, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285048.2
DATE:  August 3, 2000
**********************************************************************
Aliron International, Inc., B-285048.2, August 3, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Aliron International, Inc.

File: B-285048.2

Date: August 3, 2000

Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., Martin & Adams, for the protester.

Merilee D. Rosenberg, Esq., and Philip Kaufman, Esq., Department of Veterans
Affairs, 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

Protest challenging proposal's exclusion from competitive range is denied
where range was properly limited to the most highly rated proposals, and
protester has not challenged the evaluation or rating of proposals.

DECISION

Aliron International, Inc. protests that the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) improperly excluded its proposal from the competitive range and failed
to provide meaningful discussions under request for proposals (RFP) No.
101-03-00, for operation of a comprehensive program of occupational health
and wellness for VA and other specified federal agencies.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contained two statements of work (SOW): the first addressed the
majority of services, including the treatment of occupational and
non-occupational illnesses and injuries, emergency and non-emergency
services, an employee assistance program for VA, and other additional
services, SOW I, and the second described the services required to run VA's
fitness center. SOW II. The RFP provided that proposals initially would be
evaluated to determine whether offerors qualified under a past performance
standard, which provided that offerors must have performed similar
occupational health services during the past 5 years. RFP at 77. Proposals
of offerors that met this standard would then be evaluated on a best value
basis under the factors past performance, oral presentation, organizational
review and price. Id. at 77-78. The RFP stated that the government intended
to award the contract on the basis of initial proposals, without holding
discussions. Id. at 71, 73.

VA received four proposals, including Aliron's, determined that the four
offerors were qualified under the past performance factor, and invited all
four to make oral presentations. AR at 3. Following the oral presentations,
the evaluation panel rated one proposal blue (exceptional), two green
(good), and Aliron's yellow (adequate). Id. With respect to Aliron, the
panel found that its oral presentation failed to address many areas of SOW
I, including treatment of occupational and non-occupational illnesses and
injuries, emergency medical care and additional services; Aliron only
addressed the employee assistance program for VA, and the VA fitness
facility. Id. The panel also found that Aliron had not performed contracts
of the same complexity as the one contemplated here. Id. After reviewing the
evaluation results, the contracting officer established a competitive range
that did not include Aliron's proposal, because of its inadequate oral
presentation, the fact that it had less relevant experience than the other
offerors, and its high proposed price. [1] Competitive Range Determination
at 6.

Aliron maintains that, the facts as reported by the agency notwithstanding,
its proposal must in fact have been included in the competitive range, since
RFP amendment No. 4 stated that "[o]fferors in the competitive range will be
notified to give oral presentations within seven (7) days after closing date
of 3-10-2000," RFP amend. 4, at 3, and it was permitted to make an oral
presentation. Aliron asserts further that, while VA did ask several
discussion questions during the oral presentation, it did not discuss all of
the reasons for which its proposal was rejected. Aliron concludes that the
agency improperly failed to provide meaningful discussions. [2]

VA responds that, notwithstanding the language in the amendment, oral
presentations were part of the evaluation process, not discussions; that the
questions asked during the oral presentations were for clarification only;
and that it was not required to engage in discussions with Aliron, since the
firm's proposal was excluded from the competition following evaluation of
its oral presentation.

We agree with the agency. While the reference in the amendment to
"competitive range offerors" suggested that the competitive range would be
established before the oral presentations, considering the RFP as a whole,
we think this interpretation is untenable. First, it was clear from the RFP
that the oral presentation was part of the proposal--it was to contain the
offeror's "conceptual approach to solving the statement of work," and was to
address "the approach, methodology, and overall plan for accomplishing the
statement of work." RFP at 78. This being the case, the agency could not
establish a competitive range--which consists of the "most highly rated
proposals," FAR sect. 15.306(c)(1)--without first evaluating the oral
presentations. Furthermore, the FAR provides that the competitive range is
comprised of the most highly rated proposals "[b]ased on the ratings of each
proposal against all evaluation criteria." Id. Since oral presentation was
one of the evaluation criteria, a competitive range based on evaluation of
all criteria could not be established until after the oral presentations.
For these reasons, and in the absence of any evidence that Aliron's proposal
was ever included in the competitive range, we conclude that Aliron is
incorrect in alleging that it was.

We also find factually unsupported Aliron's contention that the agency
engaged in discussions during the oral presentations. The agency denies that
it did anything more during those presentations than seek clarifications of
the proposals, and Aliron's protest--alleging essentially that the questions
asked were minor--in fact supports the agency's position. In Aliron's words,
the agency was "seeking amplification of certain aspects of Aliron's
proposal" at the oral presentation. Protest at 3. These essentially
undisputed facts constitute clarifications, not discussions. See FAR
sect. 15.306(a)(2).

The ratings provided a reasonable basis for the agency's determination that
Aliron's proposal was not among the highest-rated following its oral
presentation (Aliron does not challenge the agency's evaluation or ratings
of proposals). The agency therefore properly eliminated the firm's proposal
from further consideration at that time, without conducting discussions.

The protest is denied.

Robert P. Murphy

General Counsel

Notes

1. The contracting officer decided to establish a competitive range and hold
discussions--despite the RFP's stated intention to make award without
discussions--in order to provide the two offerors whose proposals were rated
green an opportunity to improve their proposals, which were lower in cost
than the proposal rated blue.

2. Discussions are exchanges with offerors that take place after the
competitive range is established, and are only held with those offerors
included in the competitive range. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
sect. 15.306(d).