TITLE:  Population Health Services, Inc., B-292858, December 1, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292858
DATE:  December 1, 2003
**********************************************************************
Population Health Services, Inc., B-292858, December 1, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Population Health Services, Inc.
    
File:            B-292858
    
Date:              December 1, 2003
    
William J. Murphy, Esq., for the protester.
Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Paul R. Davis, Esq., and Janet Z. Barsy, Esq.,
Department of Energy, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Agency evaluated proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria and
reasonably downgraded the protester*s proposal under the solicitation*s
experience sub-criterion where the sub-criterion provided for the
evaluation of corporate as well as key personnel experience and the record
reflects that the protester lacks corporate experience.
DECISION
    

   Population Health Services, Inc. (PHS) protests the exclusion of its
proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DE-RP06-03RL14383, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE), for
occupational medical services. PHS argues that the agency*s evaluation of
its proposal was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation and
unreasonable.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The RFP was issued for occupational medical services to support the
11,000 personnel currently working on or near DOE*s Hanford site.  The
Hanford site consists of 586 square miles of land in southeastern
Washington, and for almost 50 years *was dedicated to plutonium production
for the nation*s nuclear arsenal.*  As a result of the plutonium
production operations, Hanford has *become the nation*s largest
environmental cleanup project.*  Agency Report (AR) at 1.
    
The personnel working at Hanford are exposed to *chemical and radiological
hazards, as well as more typical construction-related hazards.*  AR at
1-2.  Given Hanford*s history and the resultant health risks personnel are
exposed to, the occupational medical program is, according to the agency,
*an integral component of the Site*s safety management system and is
critical for maintaining the health and safety of Hanford employees.*  AR
at 2.  The medical services to be provided under this RFP include, among
other things, medical monitoring and qualification examinations, diagnosis
and treatment of injury or illness, employee counseling and health
promotion, field/facility visits, records and case management, and
emergency and disaster preparedness. 
    
The RFP provided for the award of a performance-based, cost reimbursement
service contract for 3 years.  The contractor will be required to provide
all personnel, facilities, equipment, materials, and supplies (with the
exception of identified government resources) to perform the required
occupational medical services. 
The RFP specified that *[t]he Contractor has the responsibility for total
performance under this contract, including determining the specific
methods for accomplishing the work effort, performing quality control, and
assuming accountability for accomplishing the work under the contract.* 
RFP S: C.2.
    
Award of the contract was to be made to the offeror submitting the
proposal determined to represent the best value to the agency based upon
the evaluation criteria of technical/management and cost.  The RFP
provided that the technical/management criterion was comprised of the
following six sub-criteria, listed in descending order of importance: 
experience; medical approach; past performance; organization, controls,
and systems; small business; and transition plan.  The solicitation also
informed offerors that in determining best value, the technical/management
criterion would be of significantly greater importance than cost/fee. 
    
The agency received a number of proposals, including PHS*s, by the RFP*s
closing date.[2]  The SEB found that PHS*s proposal contained significant
weaknesses under the most heavily weighted evaluation sub-criterion of
experience, in that PHS was *a new-start corporate entity, not teamed with
any other entity* and had *no previous relevant corporate experience.* 
AR, Tab B, Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Report, at 21.  The SEB also
found PHS*s proposal deficient under the experience evaluation
sub-criterion because the individual proposed for the key position of
clinical director lacked the required minimum experience.  Id. at 23.  The
agency also evaluated PHS*s proposal as having a significant weakness
under the next most important evaluation sub-criterion of medical
approach, given the SEB*s determination that the proposal evidenced
weaknesses in 12 of the 15 evaluation elements comprising the medical
approach sub-criterion.  AR, Tab B, SEB Report, at 7.  The SEB ultimately
determined that PHS*s proposal should be excluded from the competitive
range because the proposal*s evaluated point score of 291 out of 1,000
total points was significantly lower than the next-lowest proposal*s point
score of more than 650 points, and because PHS*s proposed and evaluated
costs were, respectively, the highest and second highest of the proposals
received.  Id. at 6.  After requesting and receiving a debriefing, PHS
filed this protest.
    
PHS argues that the agency*s evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable
and inconsistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the
solicitation.  The protester contends that, but for the agency*s improper
evaluation, its proposal would have been evaluated as high as the
proposals included in the competitive range.
    
In reviewing an agency*s decision to exclude a proposal from the
competitive range, we look first to the agency*s evaluation of proposals
to determine whether the evaluation had a reasonable basis.  Although in
reviewing an agency*s evaluation we will not independently determine the
merits of a proposal, we will examine the record to ensure that the
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. 
The judgments in an evaluation of proposals are subjective by nature;
nonetheless, the judgments must be reasonable and must bear a rational
relationship to the announced criteria upon which the competing offers are
selected.  Essex Electro Eng*rs, Inc., B-281149, B-284149.2, Feb. 28,
2000, 2000 CPD P: 72 at 6.
    
PHS protests that the agency*s evaluation of its proposal under the most
heavily weighted experience sub-criterion was inconsistent with the terms
of the RFP.  Specifically, the protester contends that the agency*s
evaluation of proposals was improper in this regard because it *separately
evaluated and scored without any disclosure in the RFP* the protester*s
*corporate experience and key personnel experience.*  Protester*s Comments
at 5.  The protester adds that it was unaware from the solicitation that
corporate experience would receive the weight accorded to it by the agency
in its evaluation of proposals, given that the RFP*s description of the
experience evaluation sub-criterion appeared, in the protester*s view, to
be oriented more towards an evaluation of proposed key personnel. 
    
The experience sub-criterion was set forth in the RFP (at S: M.3b) as
follows:
    
The offer will be evaluated on the extent and relevance of the Offeror*s
corporate experience and experience of the key personnel in providing
occupational medical services . . . .  This criterion addresses what the
contractor and key personnel have done relative to the requirements of
this solicitation.
The experience sub-criterion next informed offerors that *DOE will
evaluate each Offeror*s key personnel through review of written resumes,*
and described the type of information that resumes should include.  The
experience sub‑criterion concluded with a paragraph directed towards
the evaluation of the offerors* corporate experience, providing that *[i]n
the case of a newly formed joint venture, partnership, or other business
entity formed for the purpose of competing for this contract, DOE will
evaluate the experience of the entities that comprise the newly formed
entity.*  RFP S: M.3b.
    
Proposals were evaluated on a 1,000-point scale under the technical/
management criterion, and the experience sub-criterion was evaluated on a
350‑point scale.  AR, Tab B, Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Report,
at 6.  The record reflects that the agency, in evaluating the proposals,
allotted 200 of these 350 points to its evaluation of corporate
experience, and 150 points to its evaluation of key personnel.  The agency
found in reviewing PHS*s proposal that PHS, as *a new-start corporate
entity,* did not have *previous relevant corporate experience.* 
Id. at 21.  In light of this finding (which the protester does not
dispute), PHS*s proposal received 0 of the 200 possible points for
corporate experience. 
    
As set forth above, the experience sub-criterion provided for the
evaluation of the offerors* *corporate experience and the experience of
the key personnel.*  RFP S: M.3.b.1.  Accordingly, the agency*s separate
consideration and scoring of an offeror*s corporate and key personnel
experience was consistent with the RFP*s experience sub-criterion. 
Additionally, and contrary to the protester*s view, the solicitation does
not indicate or otherwise provide that an offeror*s lack of corporate
experience would be ignored or could be offset to the degree advocated by
the protester should the offeror*s key personnel*s experience be favorably
evaluated.
    
We disagree with the protester*s assertion that key personnel experience
should be given more weight than corporate experience.  In this regard, we
do not think that the fact that more words were devoted to key personnel
experience than corporate experience indicates that key personnel
experience should be more heavily weighted or that the RFP when read as
whole implies such greater weight would be assigned to key personnel
experience.  However, even assuming that corporate experience should not
have been given more weight than, but should be given the same weight as,
key personnel experience, PHS was not prejudiced.  Competitive prejudice
is an essential element of every viable protest.  Diverco, Inc., B-259734,
Apr. 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD P: 225 at 4.  Here, the agency has provided a
detailed explanation (which the protester does not dispute) demonstrating
that an equal weighting of corporate and key personnel experience during
the point scoring of proposals would have increased PHS*s proposal*s
rating under the experience sub-criterion and overall by only 5.42 out of
1,000 points.  AR at 10-12.   
    
PHS also argues that the agency*s evaluation of its proposed clinic
director under the experience sub-criterion, and of its proposal under the
medical approach sub-criterion, was unreasonable.  Specifically, the
protester contends that the agency determination that PHS*s proposed
clinic director failed to meet the minimum requirements for that position
as set forth in the solicitation, and scoring of 0 out of 45 available
points because of this, and that PHS*s proposed medical approach
constituted a significant weakness to the extent that PHS*s proposal
received 0 out of 250 points under the medical approach
sub‑criterion, were unreasonable.
    
Here too, PHS was not prejudiced by this evaluation.  Even if PHS*s
proposed clinic director had received all of the 45 points available for
that position under the experience sub-criterion, and PHS*s proposal had
received a perfect score of 250 points under the medical approach
sub-criterion, its total score would be 599 points, still significantly
lower than the score of the lowest-rated proposal in the competitive range
(which also had a lower cost).[3]  Given this, and that the protester does
not claim, and the record does not indicate, that there is any reasonable
possibility that PHS*s proposal should have received perfect scores here,
as well as the facts that PHS*s proposed cost was the highest of the
proposals received and its evaluated costs were also relatively high, we
see no reasonable possibility that the protester was prejudiced by the
agency*s allegedly unreasonable evaluation of its proposal in these
areas.  Consolidated Eng*g Servs., Inc., B-277273, Sept. 24, 1997,
97‑2 CPD P: 86 at 4; Agriculture Tech. Partners, B-272978,
B-272978.2, Dec. 5, 1996, 96-2 CPD P: 226 at 5 n.5.  In sum, we find no
basis to challenge the elimination of PHS*s proposal from the competitive
range.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] PHS also argued in its protest that the procurement was tainted by
certain specific actions that the protester believed constituted
violations of the Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C. S: 423 (2000).  The
protester and agency subsequently informed our Office that the agency*s
Office of Inspector General is investigating the protester*s allegations. 
In view of the Inspector General*s investigation, we dismissed PHS*s
protest issues that are under investigation, noting that PHS may reinstate
the protest regarding these issues upon completion of the investigation. 
See Oceaneering Int*l, Inc., B-278126; B-278126.2, Dec. 31, 1997, 98-1 CPD
P: 133 1-2 n.1; Usatrex Int*l, Inc., B-231815.4, Oct. 31, 1988, 88-2 CPD
P: 413 at 2.
[2] Our discussion in this decision is necessarily general because a
protective order was not issued in connection with this protest.
[3] This analysis also assumes that corporate and key personnel experience
should have been weighted equally by the agency in its evaluation of
proposals.