TITLE:  Godwin Corporation, B-290291, June 17, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-290291
DATE:  June 17, 2002
**********************************************************************
Godwin Corporation, B-290291, June 17, 2002

Decision

Matter of:      Godwin Corporation

File:                B-290291

Date:              June 17, 2002

M.D. Crowe for the protester.
Maj. Robert W. Clark, and Col. Michael R. Neds, Department of the Army, for
the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably evaluated offers in accordance with the terms of the
solicitation and reasonably selected for award the firm submitting the
higher technically rated, lower-priced offer.

DECISION

Godwin Corporation protests the award of a contract to RLM Services, Inc.
under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DADA08-01-T-0511, issued by the
Department of the Army for emergency room physician services at Martin Army
Community Hospital, Fort Benning, Georgia.  Godwin challenges the agency's
evaluation of offers and the award to a higher technically rated,
lower-priced firm.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ, issued as a total small business set-aside on November 29, 2001,
contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the base period and
four 1-year option periods to the responsible firm whose offer[1] was
determined most advantageous to the government considering price and the
following technical evaluation factors:  (1) present and past performance,
(2) experience, (3) management capability, and (4) recruitment and
retention.  The RFQ stated that all technical evaluation factors, when
combined, would be considered slightly less important than price.  As
relevant here, the RFQ described the present and past performance evaluation
factor as including ?recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar
items and other references (including contract numbers, points of contact
with telephone numbers and other relevant information).?  RFQ at 42.

Six firms, including Godwin and RLM, submitted offers by the closing time on
December 31.  Godwin, which was currently providing emergency room physician
services at DeWitt Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
submitted an offer containing a 1-page cover letter, a 2-page chart showing
present and past performance information, and pricing information which
included, among other items, a description of employee pay and benefits.  In
contrast, RLM, which teamed with RGB Group, Inc. for this procurement,[2]
submitted present and past performance information for itself and for RGB as
individual entities and for the two firms when teamed together for the
performance of other medical services contracts.  RLM also submitted several
written performance reviews.  As an example, one reference for a contract
for the provision of various medical services at Fort Meade, Maryland, where
RLM and RGB performed as a team, stated that RLM was ?an excellent health
professional employment agency.  [Its] staff and management personnel [were]
excellent and responsive.  Messages [were] quickly returned and key
personnel [were] knowledgeable and helpful.  I wouldn't hesitate to
recommend this company for future contracts.?  AR, Tab 6, RLM Offer,
Management Quality Assessment, Contract at Fort Meade, Maryland.  In
addition, RLM submitted a detailed management approach plan, which included,
among other items, 11 pages describing its approach for recruitment and
retention of personnel.

The agency rated Godwin's technical offer as overall ?good.?  In this
respect, the agency recognized that Godwin had over 30 years of experience,
including 14 current contracts involving the provision of emergency room
physician services, as well as various other types of physician and medical
services (e.g., pediatricians, dentists, nurses, and physical therapists).
The agency concluded that because Godwin had diverse experience in providing
medical services to the government, the firm would know how to handle
phase?in and start-up issues in order to successfully perform the contract.
The agency believed that Godwin's overall long-term contracting history
reflected good managerial expertise and that its financial plan and the
labor?based salary determinations, including pay and fringe benefits, were
sound and thorough.  The agency was concerned, however, that Godwin failed
to provide in its offer any detail regarding its approach to the recruitment
and retention of personnel.  Finally, the agency noted that Godwin did not
include in its offer any past performance information, such as customer
satisfaction reports, to support its record of performance.

In contrast, the agency rated RLM's technical offer as overall ?excellent.?
More specifically, the agency concluded that RLM demonstrated in its offer
its understanding of the solicitation requirements.  The agency recognized
that RLM, as a newly formed corporate entity, had been awarded four
contracts for nursing and dental assistance services, but did not have any
experience of its own in providing emergency room physicians.  Nevertheless,
since RLM was teamed with RGB for this procurement (and the two firms had
teamed together in the past), the agency considered RGB's numerous contracts
for the provision of physician services to the government and concluded that
RLM and RGB, both as individual entities and as team members on other
contracts, had experience in successfully providing a wide variety of
medical professional personnel to the government, including physicians
(e.g., pediatricians, internists, and dermatologists), pharmacists, nurses,
and dentists.  The agency believed that RLM, as the prime contractor,
demonstrated in its offer its understanding of credentialing and hiring
processes and the necessity for delivering quality services.   The agency
noted that RLM provided detailed policies and examples of processes in place
to meet the solicitation requirements; that RLM provided an excellent
quality management plan and a detailed, 11-page recruitment and retention
approach; and that RLM submitted several highly favorable performance
reviews.  Based on the contents of RLM's offer, the agency concluded that
RLM, with RGB as its teaming partner, could successfully perform the RFQ
requirements.

Considering RLM's overall ?excellent,? versus Godwin's overall ?good,?
technical rating, as well as the fact that RLM's price was slightly lower
(by approximately 1 percent) than Godwin's price, the contracting officer
determined to award a contract to RLM, the higher technically rated,
lower-priced firm.

Godwin challenges the evaluation of offers and the agency's decision to
select a higher technically rated, lower-priced offer.

We review an agency's evaluation of offers to ensure that it is fair,
reasonable, and consistent with the evaluation criteria stated in the
solicitation and with procurement statutes and regulations.  Power
Connector, Inc., B-286875, B-286875.2, Feb. 14, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 39 at 3.

Godwin, whose offer was downgraded because the firm did not address its
approach for recruitment and retention of personnel, complains that the
agency failed to consult with contracting officials on its other contracts
in order to verify its recruitment and retention capabilities.[3]  It was
Godwin's responsibility to demonstrate in its offer how it intended to
recruit and retain personnel; it was not the agency's obligation during the
evaluation process to fill in the gaps in Godwin's offer by consulting the
firm's references.  Since Godwin had the burden of submitting an adequately
written offer, yet failed to do so, we have no basis to question the
reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of Godwin's offer for recruitment
and retention of personnel.  Specialty Elevator Co., Inc., B?271899,
Aug. 28, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 89 at 4.

Godwin next complains that RLM, which does not have any experience of its
own in providing emergency room physician services, was unreasonably
credited with the similar physician services experience of its team member,
RGB.[4]  We disagree.

In this regard, an agency may reasonably attribute to an offeror the
performance of firms that are members of the offeror's proposed team where
the team members are to be involved in the contract effort.  Wackenhut
Servs., Inc., B-276012.2, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 75 at 6.  As discussed
above, the agency recognized that RLM did not have its own experience in
providing emergency room physician services.  However, to perform this
contract, RLM teamed with RGB, which did have experience similar to that
required by the RFQ, that is, experience in providing physicians and other
medical personnel to the government.  Since the RFQ did not prohibit teaming
arrangements, we believe the agency reasonably determined to evaluate and
credit RLM with the similar experience of RGB, RLM's team member for
performance of the RFQ requirements.  Other than expressing disagreement
with this aspect of the agency's evaluation, Godwin has provided no
meaningful basis for our Office to question the reasonableness of the
agency's evaluation of RLM's offer in the area of experience.

In sum, the record shows that in responding to the RFQ, RLM submitted a more
descriptive and detailed offer than did Godwin.  Moreover, as discussed
above, the agency's evaluation of offers was reasonable and consistent with
the terms of the
RFQ.  Accordingly, we conclude that the agency reasonably selected for award
RLM, the firm submitting the higher technically rated, lower-priced offer.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

-------------------------

[1] We note that the RFQ uses the term ?offer,? as opposed to ?quotation,?
and the record refers to a contract being awarded based on the winning
offer.  In this decision, for purposes of consistency with the record, we
use that terminology as well.
[2] In its offer, RLM stated that ?[f]or the purpose of this [offer, it
would] stand for the [RLM/RGB] team,? i.e., as the prime contractor.  Agency
Report (AR), Tab 6, RLM Offer, Approach to Services, at 1.
[3] Godwin also argues that it was not clear from the terms of the RFQ what
technical information a firm was to include in its offer for evaluation
purposes.  However, the RFQ clearly stated the four technical areas to be
evaluated, including recruitment and retention.  To the extent Godwin
believed that the terms of the RFQ were ambiguous, this matter involves an
alleged solicitation impropriety which was not timely raised prior to the
closing time for receipt of offers on December 31, 2001.  Bid Protest
Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2002).
[4] Godwin does not dispute that RGB had ?similar? experience, but complains
that RGB has never furnished the ?same? emergency room physician services as
reflected in the RFQ requirements.  We point out, however, that the RFQ
contained a ?same or similar? standard, which was satisfied by RGB.