Protest challenging exclusion of proposal from the competitive range is denied in part and dismissed in part. The protester, who was the incumbent, had a stellar record of performance and had received the highest overall past performance rating. Nevertheless, the protester’s technical proposal was ambiguous as to whether it would actually provide the services it was offering. What’s more the protester’s pricing proposal omitted required prices and failed to adhere to the methodology required by the solicitation. Based on these flaws, GAO concluded that the agency had reasonably excluded the protester from the competitive range.
The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) published a solicitation seeking medical services for correctional facility in Ohio. Seven offerors, including the incumbent, Salem Regional Medical Center, responded.
As the incumbent, Salem had received high ratings and it has consistently received overwhelmingly positive comments. As a result, Salem received the highest past performance ratings among offerors. But BOP also found several problems with Salem’s technical proposal, including no on-site institution services, lack of skilled nursing services, and failure to identify occupations, respiratory, and speech therapists. Additionally, BOP determined that Salem omitted required prices and ignored instructions to strictly adhere to the solicitation’s pricing methodology. As a result of these flaws, BOP excluded Salem’s proposal from the competitive range. Following notice of award and a debriefing, Salem protested.
Salem argued that its proposal met or exceeded all of the technical criteria and thus BOP misevaluated its technical approach. But GAO found that the record showed that Salem proposal was ambiguous regarding the scope of services it planned to provide. While Salem listed 23 services and specialists it planned to provide at the hospital, the proposal, given its failure to provide compliant pricing, created an ambiguity as to whether those services were actually being offered. Salem failed to price inpatient physician services and four categories of outpatient services. It omitted the identities of specialists. BOP reasonably concluded that there was a question as to whether Salem could satisfy material solicitation requirements.
Salem also contended that BOP should have provided more pricing information about the price evaluation after award. But GAO dismissed this argument, reasoning that allegations of inadequate debriefing do not state a valid protest.
Salem also argued that BOP failed to consider pricing for its skilled nurse services. Salem’s pricing for the skilled nursing facility, however, did not comply with the solicitation’s pricing methodology. Salem contended that it had presented an alternative pricing methodology that was permitted under 2007 amendment to the incumbent contract. But GAO found that this contention was an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation. The RFP expressly excluded alternative pricing. If Salem believed BOP should have considered alternative pricing, it should have raised this issue before the proposal deadline.
Salem is represented by Joseph H. Feltes and Daniel J. Glass of Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs LLC. The agency is represented by Oleta L. Vassilopoulos of the Department of Justice. GAO attorneys Paul N. Wengert and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.