HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptajfb0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
oComptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a I
GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been
approved for public release.
Matter of: The Arora Group, hie.
File: B-280978.3; B-280978.4
Date: January 27, 1999
Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, for the protester.
Johnathan Bailey, Esq., Theodore M. Bailey, P.C., for Professional Performance
Development Group, Inc., an intervenor.
Maj. David Newsome, Jr., Department of the Army, 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 improperly evaluated protester's proposal is denied where
review of record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent
with the stated evaluation factors.
2. Cost/technical tradeoff was reasonable where agency considered the costs and
technical merits of each proposal in deciding that the awardee's proposal
represented the best value to the government.
DECISION
The Arora Group, Inc. protests the evaluation of its proposal under request for
proposals (RFP) No. DADA10-98-R-0014, issued by the U.S. Army Medical Command
for occupational health services.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued to procure occupational health services at Federal Occupational
Health Centers (FOH) and Wellness and Fitness Centers, provided for the award of
an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. The RFP, at sections M.2.5.2. and
M.3, stated that proposals would be evaluated against the following factors and
subfac to rs:
(1) Technical Quality ([based on an] Oral Presentation and
documentation)
(A) Management Capability](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptajfb0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)