TITLE: B-311385, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, June 19, 2008
BNUMBER: B-311385
DATE: June 19, 2008
********************************************************
B-311385, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, June 19, 2008

   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: Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital

   File: B-311385

   Date: June 19, 2008

   Jeffrey E. Weinstein, Esq., for the protester.

   Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., Cohen Mohr, for Sterling Medical Associates, an
   intervenor.

   Harold W. Askins III, 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

   1.      Protest that agency purportedly performed inadequate cost realism
   analysis is denied where no such analysis was required because
   solicitation contemplated award of fixed-price, rather than
   cost-reimbursement, contract and did not provide for any realism analysis.

   2. Protest challenging scores assigned protester's and awardee's proposals
   under technical evaluation factors is denied where protester was not
   competitively prejudiced; even if protester's proposal received maximum
   possible technical score and awardee's score were reduced in accordance
   with protester's allegations, awardee would remain in line for award when
   price scores are considered.

   DECISION

   Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital (PPMH) protests the award of a contract to
   Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   VA-247-07-RP-0122, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for
   primary care and mental health services for veterans. Phoebe asserts that
   VA misevaluated its and Sterling's proposals and performed an improper
   "best value" analysis.

   We deny the protest.

   The solicitation provided for a best value award of an
   indefinite-quantity/ indefinite-delivery fixed-price contract based on
   four evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): experience
   and staffing (comprised of six subfactors), coordination and continuity of
   care (six subfactors), past performance (five subfactors), and price. RFP
   at 67. The solicitation provided that the factors, including price, would
   be numerically scored, id. at 66, and that the award would be "based on a
   scoring system ...." Id. at 67.

   Three offerors responded to the RFP, including PPMH and Sterling. Each of
   the four members of the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) reviewed
   the weaknesses and strengths in the technical proposals and assigned the
   proposals point scores for each subfactor, the total of which became the
   factor score assigned by that evaluator. The evaluators' factor scores
   were then averaged to calculate the offeror's final score for each factor
   and the total technical score. The contracting officer reviewed and
   assigned point scores to the price proposals, with the lowest-priced
   proposal receiving the maximum points (23) and each of the successively
   higher priced proposals receiving a percentage of the 23 points based on
   their deviation from the lowest price. The technical and price scores were
   then added together for a total proposal score.

   PPMH's proposal received 75.44 (out of 77 possible) technical points and
   8.95 points for price, for a total score of 84.39 points. Price
   Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) at 2. Sterling's proposal received 75.31
   technical points and 21.07 price points, for a total score of 96.38. Id.
   The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the evaluation results and
   selected Sterling for award. PPMH protests the award decision.

   PRICE EVALUATION

   PPMH protests that VA failed to perform an adequate price evaluation of
   Sterling's proposal. Specifically, PPMH complains that VA failed to
   consider Sterling's low pricing in the context of rising health care
   costs, failed to consider hidden costs in Sterling's proposal such as
   having lab testing performed at a remote VA location, and did not consider
   whether Sterling's proposed price was adequate to provide care in
   compliance with various VA directives. PPMH's argument is, in essence,
   that VA failed to perform a cost realism analysis of Sterling's proposal
   to determine if the government would actually pay more for the services
   than Sterling's proposed price.

   This argument is without merit. As noted, the RFP contemplated the award
   of a fixed-price contract. There is no requirement that a realism analysis
   be performed when award of a fixed-price contract is contemplated.
   McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2, B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD
   para. 51 at 9. This reflects the fact that it is unobjectionable for a
   firm to submit a below-cost proposal for a fixed-price contract, since
   fixed-price contracts generally are not subject to adjustment during
   performance and the contractor, not the agency, bears the financial risk
   of increases in the cost of performance. Id. While an agency may provide
   in the solicitation for a price realism analysis of fixed-price proposals
   to assess offerors' understanding of the solicitation requirements, the
   RFP here did not do so. Crown Title Corp., B-298426, Sept. 21, 2006, 2006
   CPD para. 145 at 6. Thus, the agency's failure to perform such an analysis
   does not provide a basis for questioning the award.

   AWARD DECISION

   PPMH challenges the award decision on a number of bases: (1) the award
   decision was improper because it was based on the point scores reported to
   the SSA by the SSEB, and the scoring summary on which the decision was
   based contains some inflated scores for Sterling--PPMH notes, for example,
   that while one evaluator awarded Sterling's proposal 23 points under the
   experience and staffing factor, none of the scores for this factor on the
   summary sheet is lower than 25.25 points;[1] (2) one member of the SSEB
   improperly deducted 4 points from PPMH's technical score with no
   explanation;[2] and (3) VA unreasonably failed to assign PPMH's proposal a
   significant strength under the accessibility subfactor for offering
   radiology services at a site directly across the street from its primary
   care center (Sterling, in contrast, offered to perform the services two
   miles away from its primary care center).[3]

   We will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a
   reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions,
   that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's
   actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the 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).
   There is no basis to find that PPMH was prejudiced here.

   As noted above, the RFP provided that the evaluation factors would be
   point scored and that the award decision would be based on the scoring
   system. Consistent with the RFP, in making the award decision, the SSA
   combined the technical and point scores to determine the awardee (although
   the record shows that she also considered the substantive differences
   among the technical proposals of the three offerors, PNM adden. at 1). PNM
   at 2; PNM adden. at 3. As noted above, PPMH had an overall score of 84.39
   based on technical and price scores of 75.44 and 8.95, respectively, while
   Sterling's corresponding scores were 96.38, 75.31, and 21.07. Adjusting
   Sterling's technical score downward based on the discrepancies between the
   individual evaluator's score sheets and the summary sheet, Sterling's
   technical score decreases to 72.31 and its total score to 93.38.[4] In
   light of the relatively limited effect of these adjustments, even if
   PPMH's proposal received the maximum (77) technical points available, its
   total score would increase only to 85.95 (77 technical points plus 8.95
   price points). Sterling's total score therefore would remain substantially
   higher than PPMH's and Sterling would remain in line for the award. On
   this record, there thus is no basis to conclude that PPMH was prejudiced
   by any errors in the evaluation or scoring. See Legacy Mgmt. Solutions,
   LLC, B-299981.2, B-299981.4, Oct. 10, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 197 at 78.

   SITE VISIT

   Under the accessibility subfactor (under the coordination and continuity
   of care factor), the RFP indicated that the agency would conduct a site
   visit to evaluate accessibility. PPMH complains that the VA did not
   conduct a site visit of Sterling's facility. Had the agency done so,
   according to the protester, it would have found Sterling's facility
   lacking and downgraded its proposal. In response, VA explains that it
   determined that it was unnecessary to conduct a site visit of offerors'
   facilities to evaluate accessibility because it was able to conduct the
   evaluation based on the information provided in the proposals and
   additional information from the Internet. Contracting Officer's Statement
   (COS) at 4.

   Again, where there is no basis for finding competitive prejudice to the
   protester, we will not sustain a protest challenging the waiver of a
   solicitation requirement. United Def. LP, B-286925 et al., Apr. 9, 2001,
   2001 CPD para. 75 at 27. Competitive prejudice from such a waiver exists
   only where the requirement was not similarly waived for the protester, or
   where the protester would be able to alter its proposal to its competitive
   advantage if given the opportunity to respond to the relaxed term. Id.

   PPMH suffered no prejudice as a result of VA's decision to waive the site
   visit. VA waived the requirement for all offerors, including PPMH, and
   PPMH does not argue, and there is no reason to believe, that it could have
   altered its proposal to its competitive advantage if it had known of the
   waiver. We also note that the record supports the agency's position that
   it had sufficient information to evaluate accessibility without the site
   visits. In this regard, while PPMH speculates that the agency may have
   downgraded Sterling's proposal based on, for example, the number of
   parking spaces available, Sterling discussed the number of available
   parking spaces in its proposal. Sterling Proposal at 41.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] PPMH asserts that, while the agency purportedly based the award
   decision on price because the proposals were judged to be technically
   equal, in fact, the SSEB determined that the proposals were technically
   acceptable, not that they were equal. However, the record shows that,
   while the SSEB referred to the proposals as technically acceptable, the
   SSA determined that the proposals were technically equal based on her
   review of the proposals' substantive differences and the point scores.

   [2] PPMH argues that the evaluation was unreasonable because different
   evaluators assigned proposals different scores under the same factor. This
   argument is without merit. There is nothing unusual or improper in
   evaluators reaching different conclusions and assigning different scores
   when evaluating a proposal, since both subjective and objective judgments
   are involved. The mere presence of such apparent inconsistencies does not
   give rise to a valid protest basis. See Novel Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
   B-255374, Feb. 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 149.

   [3] In the comments filed on April 18 in response to the agency report,
   the protester argued for the first time that the agency improperly failed
   to assign its proposal significant strengths for five additional elements
   of its proposal. However, PPMH knew from its March 13 debriefing the
   strengths assigned to its proposal. Accordingly, these challenges to the
   evaluation, filed more than 10 days after the debriefing, are untimely.
   See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2008); Sealift,
   Inc., B-298588, Oct. 13, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 162 at 2 n.1.

   [4] VA acknowledges that there are in fact some discrepancies between the
   point scores listed on the individual evaluators' score sheets and the
   summary score sheet. We have recomputed Sterling's scores based on the
   scores reflected in the individual evaluators' sheets. These changes
   result in a total overall score of 72.31 technical points for Sterling's
   proposal.