TITLE:  Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., B-294608, December 1, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294608
DATE:  December 1, 2004

**********************************************************************

   Decision

   Matter of:   Comprehensive Health Services, Inc.

   File:            B-294608

   Date: December 1, 2004

   Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, Esq., for the protester.

   Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S.
McNeish, Esq., for Computer Services Corporation, an intervenor.

   Scott C. Briles, Esq., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for the
agency.

   Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Contracting agency engaged in meaningful discussions concerning adequacy
of proposed staffing, such that the protester should have known and
understood the agency's concerns, where it advised offeror during oral
discussions that protester's labor hours for full time employees were
understated.

   DECISION

   Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. (CHS) protests the award of a contract
to Computer Services Corporation (CSC) under request for proposals (RFP)
No. 2004-N-01108, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for occupational health
services for CDC employees in the Atlanta, Georgia, area.  CHS argues that
the agency failed to conduct adequate discussions.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP was synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps)
website on January 15, 2004.  The RFP contemplated the award of a
cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for
a base year, with four 1-year options.  In a 34-page statement of work
(SOW), the RFP specified that the contractor would be required to provide
all personnel, equipment and supplies to operate the CDC Occupational
Health Clinics, including occupational medical services, the employee
assistance program (EAP), and worksite and health promotion programs.

   The solicitation required that proposals include, among other things, a
complete "staffing plan which demonstrates an understanding of the labor
requirements of this RFP."  RFP at 84.  To assist offerors, the RFP
provided relevant information from previous years, as well as estimates of
the number of annual patient exams and visits.  In response to questions,
the agency noted that "[f]or planning purposes, we anticipate annual
visits will increase by 10% per year for years 2004 and 2005; for years
2006 through 2009, we anticipate annual visits will increase by 2.5% per
year."  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Questions and Answers, at 2.

   The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to
the solicitation, represented the "best value" to the agency based on an
evaluation of the proposed technical approach (50 points), management
plan/personnel qualifications (35 points), corporate experience (15
points), and cost.  Id. at 91.  Technical merit was significantly more
important than cost or price.

   The agency received five proposals, which were evaluated by a four-member
technical evaluation panel (TEP).  Following the initial evaluation, CHS's
proposal, with 83.01 points, was rated technically outstanding, while
CSC's, with 91.89 points, was rated technically superior.  AR, Contracting
Officer's Statement of Facts, at 4.  Both proposals were included in the
competitive range.  AR, Tab 6, Competitive Range Determination, atA 5. 
Written and telephonic discussions were held.  Seven written questions
were forwarded to the protester prior to the oral discussions, including
the following question:

               Explain in detail your reasoning in proposing 2.5 EAP staff
members

               and how this number can adequately provide for the CDC
population

               served (and defined) in the solicitation.

   During the subsequent oral discussions, the agency raised two additional
issues with CHS (as memorialized in contemporaneous notes):  "[CHS's]
labor hours for full time employees were understated," and its "overhead
and fringe benefits were overstated."  AR, Tab 10, Discussions Questions,
June 16 Memorandum for Record, at 1.  Best and final offers (BAFO) were
requested and received.  In the final technical evaluation, the evaluators
determined that CHS's proposed staffing estimates could not adequately
support the CDC population served or the scope of work outlined in the
solicitation.  AR, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 5.  Award was made
to CSC as the "best value" to the government and, after a debriefing, CHS
filed this protest with our Office.

   The protester argues that, because the agency referred to staffing and
labor hours interchangeably in discussions, it was confused as to the
agency's actual concern; discussions therefore were not adequate to put
CHS on notice that it had "understated the number of employees that [CDC]
thought was necessary to deliver occupational health services." 
Protester's Comments at 4. 

   When an agency engages in discussions with an offeror, the discussions
must be meaningful, that is, they must lead the offeror into the areas of
its proposal that require correction or amplification.  Hanford Envtl.
Health Found., Ba-292858.2, Ba-292858.5, Apr. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD P 164 at
8.

   We do not agree with CHS that the agency's referring to staffing and labor
hours interchangeably was misleading.  Rather, we think the agency's
references to "labor hours for full time employees" (oral discussions) and
the adequacy of CHS's proposed EAP staff (written discussions) both
reasonably could be interpreted in only one way:  the agency was concerned
that CHS had not proposed enough staff to perform adequately.  The
agency's questions were adequate to bring this concern to CHS's attention,
and therefore were meaningful.[1] 

   CHS also argues that the discussions were misleading because the agency
only specified that staffing was too low in the EAP area, rather than in
all areas.  This argument, too, is without merit.  While the agency
referred only to the proposed EAP staffing in its initial written
discussions, its statement during subsequent oral discussions that CHS's
"labor hours for full time employees were understated," did not limit the
agency's concern to any specific area.  There is no indication in the
agency's contemporaneous notes, or elsewhere in the record, that the oral
discussions were intended as a reiteration of the concerns previously
raised in the written discussions; indeed, it appears that the two sets of
discussions were meant to be different.  As we find no other basis for the
protester to have interpreted the agency's oral question as referring only
to its EAP staffing, the discussions with CHS were unobjectionable.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1]We note, moreover, that CHS increased its full time equivalent (FTE)
staffing somewhat in its BAFO.  In its March 2004 business proposal, CHS
proposed 25.5A FTEs for 2004, 27 FTEs for 2005, 28.5 FTEs for 2006, and
30.5 FTEs for 2007 and 2008.  CHS Business Proposal at III-4.  Including
subcontract staff and outsourced staff, CHS's total proposed staffing was
27 FTEs for 2004, 28.5 FTEs for 2005, 30A FTEs for 2006, and 32 FTEs for
2007 and 2008.  Id.  (CHS's technical proposal included different numbers,
for reasons that are not apparent from the record:  26A FTEs for the base
year, 27.5 FTEs for 2005, 29 FTEs for 2006, and 31 FTEs for 2007 and
2008.  CHS Technical Proposal, Appendices, Staffing Basis of Estimate
Summary.)  In its BAFO, CHS proposed 26 FTEs for 2004, 27 FTEs for 2005,
28.5A FTEs for 2006, 30.5A FTEs for 2007, and 33.5 for 2008.  CHS BAFO at
III-5.  Including subcontract staff and outsourced staff, CHS offered 27.5
FTEs for 2004, 28.5 for 2005, 30 for 2006, 32 for 2007, and 35 for 2008. 
CHS BAFO at III-5.  Id.
