TITLE: B-297687.2, Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture, June 20, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297687.2
DATE: June 20, 2006
********************************************************************
B-297687.2, Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture, June 20, 2006

   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.

   Decision

   Matter of: Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture

   File: B-297687.2

   Date: June 20, 2006

   Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Robert G. Hanseman, Esq., and Suzanne Sumner,
   Esq., Sebaly Shillito & Dyer, for the protester.

   Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq., and Edward N. Ramras, Esq., Department of
   the Air Force, and John W. Klein, Esq., and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., United
   States Small Business Administration, for the agencies.

   Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest is sustained where the agency did not reasonably evaluate in
   accordance with the terms of a multiple-award solicitation the proposals
   of the protester and an awardee and where the protester, the lowest priced
   offeror, was competitively prejudiced by the agency's flawed evaluation.

   DECISION

   Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture[1] protests the award of a
   contract to Luke and Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP)
   No. FA7012-05-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Air Force for direct
   care clinical support services, i.e., the provision of high-quality
   healthcare workers to treat patients inside Air Force Medical Treatment
   Facilities (MTF) within the United States. Magnum protests the evaluation
   of its proposal and the agency's selection of Luke's proposal for award.

   We sustain the protest.[2]

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside on May 13, 2005,
   stated the agency's intent to "award up to five"
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity fixed-price contracts for a 4-year
   basic contract period and two 3-year option periods to those responsible
   offerors whose proposals represented the best value to the government
   based on an integrated assessment of mission capability, past performance,
   proposal risk, and price. RFP at 210. Under the RFP, the evaluation
   factors were listed in descending order of importance with mission
   capability and past performance being equal in importance, and proposal
   risk being more important than price. The RFP stated that the non-price
   evaluation factors, when combined, would be considered significantly more
   important than price, but that price would contribute substantially to the
   selection decision.

   The mission capability evaluation factor contained the following three
   subfactors, which were listed in descending order of importance: retain,
   recruit, and qualify. As relevant here, under the qualify subfactor, the
   agency would evaluate the adequacy, clarity, and executability of the
   offeror's management plan in terms of the offeror demonstrating the
   ability to provide personnel that would meet minimum qualification and
   security requirements and the capability of the offeror to submit complete
   and accurate security and, when required, credentialing packages. Under
   the RFP, the qualify subfactor would be met when the offeror's proposed
   "organizational structure and staffing plan," defined in the RFP as the
   offeror's "internal processes that demonstrate efficiency and
   effectiveness in processing the required documentation [i.e., resumes,
   credentialing packages, and security documents] prior to the start of work
   under the task order," showed the offeror's ability to timely submit
   complete and accurate security and, when required, credentialing packages.
   RFP at 212-13.[3]

   As explained by the agency during a conference call in which our Office
   and all parties to this protest participated, there are two types of
   healthcare workers--credentialed and non-credentialed. Credentialed
   healthcare workers, such as doctors, are those who have gone through a
   credentialing process and have obtained privileges through the applicable
   MTF credentialing committee in order to work at the facility. Under the
   RFP, the contractor must provide a complete, current, and accurate
   credentialing package for each proposed healthcare worker requiring
   privileges and must make these proposed workers available for an interview
   by the MTF during the credentialing process. The RFP further states that
   the credentials of each healthcare worker will be reviewed and privileges
   will be granted in accordance with Air Force Instruction 44-119, Clinical
   Performance Improvement, June 4, 2001. Performance Work Statement (PWS)
   sect. 4.10.1. In contrast, proposed non-credentialed healthcare workers,
   such as lab technicians and pharmacy technicians, do not need to go
   through a credentialing process in order to work at an MTF.

   Both credentialed and non-credentialed healthcare workers must meet the
   security requirements contained in the RFP in order to gain physical
   access to the MTF, as well as to gain access to the medical information
   computer system at the MTF where patient documentation and information is
   entered and accessed in the course of treatment. More specifically, with
   respect to security requirements, since healthcare workers under the
   contract will have access to, or will process, information requiring
   statutory privacy protection, the RFP requires the contractor to apply for
   a National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI) prior to the start of
   performance for each proposed healthcare worker under the contract in
   accordance with specified Department of Defense Directives and Air Force
   Instructions. In this regard, under the RFP, the contractor must have each
   of its proposed healthcare workers make an appointment with the
   appropriate security organization at the MTF where service is to be
   provided, with each worker being fingerprinted and required to complete
   the applicable forms related to holding a public trust position. The RFP
   requires the contractor to advise its healthcare workers that a positive
   report is needed as a condition of employment under the contract. PWS
   sect. 4.8. In addition, because the MTF will conduct criminal history
   background checks on all proposed healthcare workers who are involved on a
   frequent and regular basis with the delivery of healthcare to children
   under the age of 18 (for example, those working in a pediatric clinic),
   the RFP requires the contractor to ensure that the applicable forms are
   completed by the proposed healthcare worker for submittal. PWS sect.
   4.10.2. Thus, whether credentialed or non-credentialed, each proposed
   healthcare worker must satisfy the RFP's security requirements.

   Under the RFP, a color rating (blue/exceptional, green/acceptable,
   yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable) would be assigned to each proposal
   for each of the mission capability subfactors; these subfactor ratings
   would not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the mission
   capability evaluation factor. A proposal risk rating (high, moderate, or
   low) would be assigned to each of the mission capability subfactors. A
   performance confidence assessment (high confidence, significant
   confidence, satisfactory confidence, unknown confidence, little
   confidence, or no confidence) would be assigned to the past performance
   evaluation factor. In making the integrated assessment of the technical
   evaluation factors and price, and in accordance with the relative
   importance assigned to the evaluation factors as described above, the RFP
   stated that any of the evaluation considerations could influence the
   agency's selection decision.

   The RFP instructed that an offeror's proposal was required to be clear and
   concise and to include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for
   substantiating the validity of stated claims. The RFP advised that an
   offeror should assume that the agency has no prior knowledge of an
   offeror's experience and that the agency would base its evaluation on the
   information presented in the offeror's proposal. The RFP further
   instructed that the agency reserved the right to make the awards based on
   initial proposals without conducting discussions.

   Twenty-eight firms submitted initial proposals by the stated closing time.
   The agency awarded contracts to the five most highly rated offerors, whose
   initial proposals were determined eligible for award without the need to
   conduct discussions. (These proposals received at least a green/low risk
   rating for each of the mission capability subfactors and at least a
   satisfactory confidence rating for past performance; the evaluated prices
   of these proposals were considered fair and reasonable.) Following is the
   agency's evaluation of the proposals of Magnum, the lowest priced offeror
   in the competition, and the five offerors which were awarded contracts,
   including Luke:[4]

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|            |Mission Capability/Proposal Risk|Past Performance|               |
|            |--------------------------------+----------------|Evaluated Price|
|            |  Retain  | Recruit  | Qualify  |   Confidence   |               |
|------------+----------+----------+----------+----------------+---------------|
|            |          |          | Yellow/  |                |               |
|   Magnum   |Green/Low | Blue/Low |          |  Significant   |  $[deleted]   |
|            |          |          | Moderate |                |               |
|------------+----------+----------+----------+----------------+---------------|
| Awardee #1 |Green/Low |Green/Low |Green/Low |  Significant   |  $[deleted]   |
|------------+----------+----------+----------+----------------+---------------|
| Awardee #2 | Blue/Low |Green/Low |Green/Low |  Satisfactory  |  $[deleted]   |
|------------+----------+----------+----------+----------------+---------------|
| Awardee #3 | Blue/Low | Blue/Low |Green/Low |  Significant   |  $[deleted]   |
|------------+----------+----------+----------+----------------+---------------|
| Awardee #4 |Green/Low | Blue/Low |Green/Low |  Satisfactory  |  $[deleted]   |
|------------+----------+----------+----------+----------------+---------------|
|Awardee #5/ |          |          |          |                |               |
|            |Green/Low |Green/Low |Green/Low |  Satisfactory  |  $[deleted]   |
|    Luke    |          |          |          |                |               |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Source Selection Decision Document, Nov. 10, 2005, at 5, 11, 17, 22-25,
   32.

   In its proposal, in addressing the qualify subfactor under the mission
   capability evaluation factor, Magnum offered a self-assessment of low risk
   in the areas of the joint venture providing personnel meeting minimum
   "qualifications and security" requirements, providing structures for
   processing "resumes, credentialing packages and security documents," and
   providing timely submission of "resumes and security/ credentialing
   packages." Magnum referred to a strategy of [deleted]; that is, prior to
   the receipt of paperwork from the candidate, Magnum would use [deleted] to
   ensure that "all qualifications, credentialing and security requirements"
   would be met by each candidate. Magnum stated that it employs [deleted],
   each of whom was experienced in meeting "credentialing/security and
   start-up requirements" for MTFs. Magnum stated that resumes would be
   submitted for approval within 30 days of award, and that credentialing and
   security packages would be submitted at least 30 days prior to the start
   of provider services at an MTF. Magnum's Initial Proposal at 49-50.

   Magnum also provided a descriptive listing of [deleted] "[deleted]
   milestones" in order for it to meet task order start-up under the
   contract. For example, within [deleted] days [deleted], Magnum stated that
   "completed [MTF]-specific security documentation [would be submitted] to
   [the contracting officer's representative] for technical review, and
   [would] be forwarded to [the] appropriate MTF sources for security
   approval." In addition, at least [deleted] days [deleted], Magnum stated
   that it would "[c]onfirm that all [healthcare] providers and staff ha[d]
   been cleared by base security and [would] be able from a security point of
   view to begin providing services in a timely manner." Id. at 14.

   Magnum further explained that the joint venture had structures in place to
   meet all current timeframes required by the agency; that checklist
   timelines generated for start-up of each task order would be monitored
   daily by the project manager and assigned location administrator as part
   of the joint venture's normal contract start-up; and that any potential
   for submittal deadlines not being met would require notice to the
   corporate officers of the joint venture partners so that additional staff
   could be assigned and additional measures could be taken in order to
   return to timely processing. Finally, Magnum pointed out that the
   "qualifications/security requirements [in this RFP were] very similar" to
   requirements that the joint venture had performed under other government
   contracts [deleted]. Id. at 49.

   In its proposal, in addressing the qualify subfactor under the mission
   capability evaluation factor, Luke stated that its "credentialing process
   is performed and the security and credentialing package submitted in
   [deleted] days." Luke stated that the "Security and Credentialing packages
   are prepared by [deleted] and re-confirmed by [deleted] prior to submittal
   to the MTF credentialing manager." Luke continued by stating that its
   process uses its "[deleted] to assist in eliminating incomplete or missing
   information from being submitted to the MTF. This process for
   `credentialing and privileging' is provided in Figure 4.2-1 [a flowchart
   entitled "Medical Staff Credentialing and Privileging Clearance Process"]
   . . . [and] Figure 4.2-2 provides a timeline for [its] credentialing
   process." Luke's Initial Proposal at II-33--34.

   In its credentialing and privileging flowchart, Luke made reference to
   "security." For example, in one block in the flowchart, Luke stated that
   the [deleted] would review "explanation of Credentialing & Security
   process to applicant" and that the [deleted] would note the receipt of
   documents [deleted]. In another block in the flowchart, Luke stated that
   the [deleted] would review "remaining credentialing & security
   requirements and plan[] follow-up call with applicant." In yet another
   block, Luke stated that the [deleted] would "Send[] packet to
   Credentialing & Security Inspector." Id. at II-35--36.

   In addition, Luke's proposal contained a [deleted] listing of milestones
   showing the number of days involved in its "process that ensures that
   deliverables are submitted ahead of time." This listing of milestones
   referred to Luke's "credential process" and to the preparation,
   inspection, signature, and completion of the "Credentialing Packet." In
   this listing of milestones, Luke's only reference to "security" was in the
   final line which stated, "Max. Days to Prepare Security and Credentialing
   Package" is [deleted] days [deleted]. Id. at II-37.

   The yellow rating assigned to Magnum's proposal for the qualify subfactor
   under the mission capability evaluation factor was defined by the RFP as
   "marginal," that is, "Does not clearly meet some specified minimum
   performance or capability requirements delineated in the [RFP], but any
   such uncertainty is correctable." RFP at 211.[5] In addition, the
   "moderate" proposal risk rating assigned to the qualify subfactor was
   defined by the RFP as "Can potentially cause disruption of schedule,
   increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis
   and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome
   difficulties." RFP at 215.

   More specifically, for the qualify subfactor, the agency, as reflected in
   the initial and final consensus evaluations, determined that while Magnum
   proposed a "proactive" credentialing process,[6] Magnum's "process for
   security package information [was] not detailed" and this "lack of
   clarification regarding the submission process for security packages
   increases [the] risk of unsuccessful contract performance and can
   potentially cause disruption of program schedule." Magnum's Technical
   Evaluation at 8-10. The agency did not believe that Magnum specifically
   addressed its internal processes for the collection of the security
   information or that Magnum had conveyed that the contents of the security
   packages would contain the information required by the government. While
   noting that Magnum stated that any risk would be mitigated through its
   pre-screening of the credentials of proposed healthcare workers and that
   this process was similar to other work that the joint venture had
   performed, the agency nevertheless concluded that Magnum failed to clearly
   describe in its proposal its internal processes for satisfying the RFP's
   security requirements. The agency characterized this aspect of Magnum's
   proposal as an "uncertainty" and as a "weakness." Proposal Analysis Report
   at 190-91.

   The green rating assigned to Luke's proposal for the qualify subfactor
   under the mission capability evaluation factor was defined by the RFP as
   "acceptable," that is, "Meets specified minimum performance or capability
   requirements delineated in the [RFP]; proposal . . . [has] no deficiencies
   but may have one or more strengths." RFP at 211. In addition, the "low"
   proposal risk rating assigned to the qualify subfactor was defined by the
   RFP as "Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased
   cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal
   government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties."
   RFP at 215.

   Notwithstanding the initial concerns of at least one evaluator who
   commented that Luke's proposal "specifically mentions security package
   requirements, but process details for security [were] not given," Luke's
   Technical Evaluation at 1, the agency determined, as reflected in the
   final consensus evaluation, that Luke's proposal contained no
   uncertainties or weaknesses. Id. at 7-8. The agency also commented
   favorably on Luke's proposed [deleted] system for tracking healthcare
   workers' credentials and certifications to ensure timely renewal
   notification in order to prevent any disruption in patient care. Id. at 7;
   Proposal Analysis Report at 72.[7]

   In making her best-value determination, the source selection authority
   (SSA) noted that the RFP allowed the agency to award the contracts on the
   basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. The SSA further
   noted that because the agency received a sufficient number of initial
   proposals that met the minimum requirements of the RFP, discussions with
   the offerors would not be necessary prior to making the awards.
   Accordingly, the SSA awarded contracts to the five most highly rated
   offerors. As relevant here, with respect to the fifth award, the agency
   did not perform a comparative analysis, or make a tradeoff, between the
   proposals of Magnum and Luke because, according to the agency and as
   described above, Magnum was not eligible for award without the agency
   conducting discussions with the firm due to the yellow/moderate risk
   rating assigned to Magnum's proposal for the qualify subfactor under the
   mission capability evaluation factor. Agency Statement, May 8, 2006, at
   3-4; Agency Final Statement, May 15, 2006, at 2.

   ISSUE AND ANALYSIS

   Magnum argues that for the qualify subfactor under the mission capability
   evaluation factor, the agency failed to reasonably and equally evaluate
   its proposal and Luke's proposal. In making this argument, Magnum points
   out that one of the evaluators who questioned Magnum's own alleged lack of
   internal security process details raised a similar question about Luke,
   commenting that Luke's proposal did not give process details for security.
   Magnum notes that while this evaluator's initial concern with respect to
   its own proposal became a part of the agency's final consensus evaluation,
   there is no explanation in the contemporaneous evaluation record, nor was
   any explanation provided by the agency during the development of this
   protest record, for why the same initial concern with respect to Luke's
   proposal was not similarly carried through to the final consensus
   evaluation for that firm's proposal. Since Luke's proposal was not
   downgraded for failing to clearly discuss its internal processes for
   satisfying the RFP's security requirements, Magnum maintains that its
   proposal should have been similarly evaluated, as opposed to being
   downgraded. In addition, Magnum argues that its proposal, in fact, was
   more detailed in terms of describing an internal process for addressing
   the RFP's security requirements than was Luke's proposal. Finally, Magnum,
   the lowest priced offeror in the competition (which was determined
   responsible by the SBA even with its low price), argues that it was
   competitively prejudiced vis-`a-vis Luke as a result of the agency's
   flawed evaluation of the qualify subfactor.

   In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, we will
   consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
   terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. See,
   e.g., Sytronics, Inc., B-297346, Dec. 29, 2005, 2006 CPD para. 15. We will
   not sustain a protest absent a showing of competitive prejudice, that is,
   unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it
   would have a substantial chance of receiving award. McDonald-Bradley,
   B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v.
   Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In the circumstances of
   this protest, we conclude that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate
   the proposals of Magnum and Luke for the qualify subfactor under the
   mission capability evaluation factor and that Magnum was competitively
   prejudiced by the agency's flawed evaluation.

   Here, for the qualify subfactor, the RFP required an offeror to
   demonstrate that it could provide healthcare workers who would meet the
   RFP's minimum qualification and security requirements and that it could
   timely submit, as applicable, complete and accurate security and
   credentialing packages. The RFP stated that the qualify subfactor would be
   met when an offeror's "internal processes" demonstrated the offeror's
   efficiency and effectiveness in timely processing, for example, the
   required security and credentialing packages prior to the start of work
   under the task order.

   We agree with Magnum that there is nothing in the record that establishes
   why Magnum's proposal for the qualify subfactor should have been
   downgraded in comparison to Luke's proposal for this subfactor. In this
   regard, Magnum, like Luke, proposed to satisfy the RFP's security and
   credentialing requirements together as part of a single internal process.
   More specifically, Magnum, like Luke, described an internal process for
   satisfying the RFP's security requirements that was linked to, and was a
   part of, each firm's respective internal process for satisfying the RFP's
   credentialing requirements. Magnum, like Luke, referenced "security" in
   the context of discussing an internal process for credentialing, for which
   both offerors received favorable evaluation comments. Finally, Magnum,
   like Luke, focused on a security process for credentialed healthcare
   workers, but neither firm separately addressed a process for security for
   non-credentialed healthcare workers. While the agency credited Luke with
   addressing the RFP's security requirements as part of its internal process
   for satisfying the RFP's credentialing requirements, there is nothing in
   the record that explains why Magnum's proposal, which basically appears to
   provide the same information as Luke's proposal, should not have received
   the same credit.

   Moreover, in certain respects, as pointed out by Magnum, it could
   reasonably be argued that Magnum's proposal was more descriptive than
   Luke's proposal in terms of addressing an internal process for satisfying
   the RFP's security requirements. For example, Luke merely inserted the
   word "security" into some of the blocks in its credentialing and
   privileging flowchart and, in its [deleted] listing of milestones, Luke
   referred exclusively to a "credential process" and to a "Credential
   Packet," only inserting the word "security" in the final line where it
   stated that the "security and credentialing package" would be prepared in
   [deleted] days [deleted]. In contrast, Magnum narratively described its
   credentialing process, including specifying the number of [deleted]
   employed by the joint venture who were experienced in meeting, for
   example, credentialing and security requirements for MTFs; providing a
   descriptive listing of [deleted] milestones in order for it to meet task
   order start-up under the contract; explaining that daily monitoring by the
   project manager and other administrative personnel would occur to ensure
   submittal deadlines would be met; and, explaining that, if necessary,
   additional staff would be assigned and other measures would be taken to
   return to timely processing.[8] On this record, it is difficult to
   understand the basis for the agency's view that Luke's proposal for the
   qualify subfactor addressed the RFP's security requirements in a way that
   was materially superior to the way in which Magnum addressed these
   requirements in its proposal. Further, other than its conclusory statement
   that a majority of the evaluators determined, as reflected in the final
   consensus evaluation, that Luke satisfied the RFP's security requirements,
   including providing a description of its internal process for satisfying
   these requirements, there is nothing in either the contemporaneous
   evaluation record or in the agency's submissions filed during our
   consideration of this protest (including the previously referenced
   conference call) that in any way reasonably or meaningfully addresses how
   the agency reached its final consensus evaluation concerning this matter.

   Therefore, on this record, we do not believe that the agency has
   reasonably supported its conclusion that, with regard to the qualify
   subfactor, Magnum's proposal merited a lower rating than Luke's proposal.
   As a result of the agency's flawed evaluation, we conclude that the
   qualify subfactor was not a reasonable discriminator in terms of deciding
   whether the proposal of Magnum or Luke represented the best value to the
   government in terms of a fifth award (where the agency made the awards on
   the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions). In other
   words, the record is devoid of any explanation of the substantive
   differences in the two proposals which would justify the agency's
   determination that Luke's proposal for satisfying the RFP's security
   requirements was superior to Magnum's proposal in terms of addressing
   these requirements.

   Finally, we conclude that, as a result of the agency's flawed evaluation,
   Magnum was competitively prejudiced. The record establishes that had the
   agency reasonably evaluated the proposals of Magnum and Luke, these
   proposals would have been rated the same for two of the mission capability
   evaluation subfactors (retain and qualify), and Magnum's proposal would
   have been rated higher than Luke's proposal for the recruit subfactor. In
   addition, the record shows that for the past performance evaluation
   factor, Magnum's proposal received a significant confidence rating, while
   Luke's proposal received only a satisfactory confidence rating. Finally,
   Magnum's evaluated price was approximately [deleted] percent less than
   Luke's evaluated price.[9] Therefore, we conclude that, but for the flawed
   evaluation of Magnum's proposal for the qualify subfactor, Magnum's higher
   rated, lower priced proposal, not Luke's lower rated, higher priced
   proposal, would have been selected for award.

   RECOMMENDATION

   We recommend that the agency make an award to Magnum. If the agency
   determines that it is not appropriate to make six awards, we recommend
   that the agency terminate Luke's contract for the convenience of the
   government. In addition, we recommend that the agency reimburse Magnum for
   the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing this protest, including
   reasonable attorneys' fees.[10] Magnum's certified claim for costs,
   detailing the time expended and costs incurred, must be submitted to the
   agency within 60 days of receiving this decision. Bid Protest Regulations,
   4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1) (2006).

   The protest is sustained.[11]

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The joint venture consists of two partners under a mentor/protege
   arrangement recognized by the United States Small Business Administration
   (SBA). Specifically, the mentor is Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. and
   the protege is Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc.

   [2] This protest follows Magnum's earlier protest in which the Air Force
   took corrective action by referring the issue of Magnum's responsibility,
   based on the agency's concerns related to Magnum's "capability to provide
   the required services on a sustained basis at the [low] prices offered,"
   to the SBA for the possible issuance of a certificate of competency (COC).
   Air Force Corrective Action Notice, Dec. 21, 2005. In the notice to our
   Office advising of the corrective action, previous Air Force counsel
   stated, "Although [Magnum] was not a successful offeror, after receiving
   the SBA response, the Air Force Source Selection Authority will reevaluate
   her [previous source selection] decision . . . that did not award [a]
   contract to [Magnum], and will issue a new source selection decision
   document." Id. Air Force counsel continued, "This action is not a promise
   to award a contract to [Magnum] if a COC is granted, but only a promise
   that Magnum will be fairly considered for a contract with due
   consideration to the SBA determination." Id. Although the SBA issued a COC
   to Magnum, the Air Force determined not to award a contract to Magnum. It
   is not clear why the Air Force referred the issue of Magnum's
   responsibility to the SBA in the first instance if it had no intention of
   awarding a contract to Magnum even if the SBA issued a COC to the firm.
   However, we need not address this in light of our conclusion that Magnum's
   proposal was not evaluated reasonably.

   [3] The RFP defined the timeframe for submittal of security and
   credentialing packages as not later than 30 calendar days before the start
   of work. Magnum and Luke each proposed to comply with this 30-day
   requirement.

   [4] In its report to our Office, the Air Force produced, with the
   agreement of Magnum, the proposals of, and the evaluation documentation
   for, only Magnum and Luke. Consistent with its action as taken in Magnum's
   earlier protest (which ultimately resulted in the SBA's issuance of a COC
   to Magnum), the Air Force, in the current protest, did not stay
   performance by the first four awardees; the Air Force only stayed
   performance by Luke since only the fifth award is in dispute. Accordingly,
   the agency's evaluation of the proposals of Magnum and Luke is the focus
   of this protest.

   [5] In its Memorandum of Law, the agency characterized Magnum's proposal
   as "technically unacceptable," and in its Statement of Facts, the agency
   characterized Magnum's proposal as "not technically acceptable." Neither
   of these phrases is found in the contemporaneous evaluation or source
   selection record. In the course of developing the protest record, the
   agency acknowledged that "there was inconsistent terminology between the
   Memorandum of Law, the Statement of Facts[,] and the contemporaneous
   record." The agency continued by stating that it "was not [its] intention
   to convey that Magnum's proposal was rated `unacceptable' or `technically
   unacceptable.'" Agency Statement, May 8, 2006, at 1-2.

   [6] The agency initially characterized Magnum's proactive approach to
   credentialing as a strength; however, as part of the final consensus
   evaluation, the agency removed this strength, explaining that the
   [deleted] in Magnum's proposal did not guarantee compliance and that
   Magnum's proactive credentialing process was not an exceptional aspect of
   its proposal since credentialing was the offeror's responsibility and
   Magnum's approach in this regard did not represent an increased benefit to
   the government above and beyond what was required by the RFP. Magnum's
   Technical Evaluation at 8-9.

   [7] Similar to its conclusion with respect to Magnum, the agency
   determined that Luke's [deleted] system for tracking workers' credentials
   and certifications relies heavily on technology being used at the MTFs by
   the workers and does not necessarily ensure that the workers will timely
   complete their renewals, only that they will receive a reminder to
   complete them. Accordingly, the agency concluded that this strength was
   not beneficial to the government in a way that would justify any
   additional cost because each MTF was responsible for tracking this
   information for all licensed providers. Luke's Technical Evaluation at 7;
   Proposal Analysis Report at 72.

   [8] In its proposal, Magnum also pointed out that the credentialing and
   security requirements in the RFP were very similar to requirements that
   the joint venture had performed under other government contracts
   [deleted]. The record shows that Magnum was credited for its record of
   successful past performance, as reflected by the significant confidence
   past performance rating assigned to its proposal.

   [9] It is worth emphasizing that once the SBA issued the COC to Magnum,
   the agency determined that Magnum was a responsible offeror in terms of
   its low price. Addendum to Source Selection Decision Document, Mar. 6,
   2006, at 2. For this reason, Magnum's low price could not be a basis to
   deny an award to the firm.

   [10] Contrary to Magnum's request, we find that it is not entitled to
   recover the costs associated with filing and pursuing its original protest
   that resulted in the agency taking corrective action prior to the filing
   of the administrative report because, generally, if an agency takes
   corrective action in response to a protest by the due date for its
   administrative report in response to that protest, we consider such action
   to be prompt and we will not recommend reimbursement of protest costs. The
   Sandi-Sterling Consortium--Costs, B-296246.2, Sept. 20, 2005, 2005 CPD
   para. 173 at 2-3. Moreover, to the extent that Magnum requests
   reimbursement of its costs associated with pursuing the COC at the SBA, we
   point out that our Office lacks statutory authority to recommend
   reimbursement of costs incurred in connection with a matter brought in a
   different forum since these costs were not incurred in pursuit of a
   protest filed with our Office. Career Quest, a div. of Syllan Careers,
   Inc.--Costs, B-293435.5, Apr. 13, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 79 at 2; Rice
   Servs., Ltd.--Costs, B-284997.2, May 18, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 88 at 3;
   Test Sys. Assocs., Inc.--Costs, B-256813.6, Oct. 29, 1996, 96-2 CPD para.
   161 at 4.

   [11] In light of this decision sustaining the protest, we need not address
   the other issues raised by Magnum.