United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: NaphCare, Inc.

File: B-406695; B-406695.2

Date: August 3, 2012

Jason A. Carey, Esq., Thomas C. Papson, Esq., Erin B. Sheppard, Esq., John W. 

Sorrenti, Esq., and Katherine L. Veeder, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for 

the protester.

William T. Hassler, Esq., Michael J. Navarre, Esq., Peter L. Wellington, Esq., and 

Lauren E. Groth, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson LLP, for Seven Corners, Inc., the 

intervenor.

William Robinson, Esq., and Oleta Thomas, Esq., Department of Justice, for the 

agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation and selection decision is denied where 

the record demonstrates that the evaluation and source selection decision were 

reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

DECISION

NaphCare, Inc., of Birmingham, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to Seven 

Corners, Inc., of Carmel, Indiana, under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. P02011000002, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(BOP), for comprehensive medical services for the Federal Correctional Complex in 

Allenwood, Pennsylvania. The protester objects to the agency’s evaluation and 

selection decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on December 20, 2010, provided for the award of a requirements 

type contract with fixed unit prices for comprehensive medical services for inmates 

at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex for a base year and 4 option years. 

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.
Page 2 B-406695; B-406695.2 

The RFP provided for award on a best value basis, considering the following factors: 

technical; past performance; small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation; and 

price. RFP at 39-40. Offerors were informed that technical and past performance 

factors were of equal value and that SDB participation factor was less important than 

either the technical or past performance factor. Id. at 39. The non-price factors 

combined were stated to be approximately equal to price. Id.

With respect to the technical factor, offerors were informed that the agency would 

assess the offeror’s approach to providing an appropriate mix of resources to deliver 

quality medical care to the inmates of the Federal Correctional Complex while 

mitigating the government’s cost and security risks.1 RFP at 39. The technical 

factor included the following equally weighted subfactors:

1. Level of diversity of services proposed;

2. Driving distance and conditions to and from the communitybased providers;

3. Accreditation status of the proposed contract facility(s).

4. Enhancements to the basic contract requirements proposed by 

the offeror which will facilitate the [Federal Correctional Complex’s] 

ability to conform to the BOP’s stated mission.

Id. at 39-40.

The past performance factor included the following equally weighted subfactors: 

quality of product or service; timeliness of performance; business relations; and 

customer satisfaction.2

 Id. at 40.

The RFP identified the following pricing categories, which the RFP stated were in 

descending order of importance: inpatient facility services, outpatient facility 

services; outpatient physician services; outpatient institution services – other 

physicians; inpatient physician services; and outpatient institution services –

prosthetic/orthotics adjustments. Although the RFP identified estimated quantities 

 1 The agency rated proposals under the technical factor as exceptional, very good, 

satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory. Agency Report (AR), Vol. I, Tab 4, Source 

Selection Plan, at 3-4. A satisfactory rating indicated that the diversity of services 

offered was anticipated to meet many of the government’s needs and the proximity 

of the provider network was such that travel time would be moderate. Id.

2 Past performance was rated as exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, 

unsatisfactory or neutral. AR, Vol. I, Tab 4. Source Selection Plan, at 5-6.
Page 3 B-406695; B-406695.2 

for the pricing categories, the RFP did not provide for calculating an overall total 

price. See id. at 4-9. Rather, offerors were informed that the offeror providing the 

largest discount from the Medicare rate in a particular category would be considered 

to be offering the lowest price in that category. Id. at 39. For all other items, the 

offeror proposing the lowest unit price would be considered to be offering the lowest 

price in each category.3

 Id. at 41. 

The agency received six proposals. In this regard, Seven Corners submitted three 

proposals, and NaphCare submitted one proposal. NaphCare proposed in its initial 

proposal to use [Deleted] ([Deleted] miles from Allenwood) and [Deleted] ([Deleted] 

miles) as primary facilities with [Deleted] ([Deleted] miles) and [Deleted] ([Deleted] 

miles) for outpatient services only. See AR, Vol. I, Tab 25, Source Selection 

Decision, at 1. Seven Corners proposed in its initial proposal to use [Deleted] 

([Deleted] miles), [Deleted] ([Deleted] miles), [Deleted] ([Deleted] miles) and 

[Deleted] ([Deleted] miles) for both inpatient and outpatient services. Id. at 7.

The agency’s technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the firms’ proposals under 

the technical factor. The contracting officer, the source selection authority (SSA) for 

this procurement, evaluated the proposals under the past performance and SDB 

participation factors, and evaluated the firms’ proposed prices. The agency decided 

to conduct discussions and established a competitive range that included the 

proposals of four firms, including NaphCare and Seven Corners.4

 Contracting 

Officer’s Statement at 7.

The agency asked NaphCare during discussions to address the participation of the 

facilities in the [Deleted] (which includes [Deleted]). AR, Vol. I, Tab 21, Discussions 

with NaphCare, at 3. NaphCare was also requested to reconsider offering the 

services of ophthalmologist, physical therapist and psychiatrist and to define the 

weekly hours/duties of the on-site scheduler. Id. NaphCare was also requested to 

provide more detail concerning its offer of a [Deleted] at [Deleted]. Id.

 3 To consider offerors’ prices in accordance with the weighting identified in the RFP, 

the agency assigned points (totaling 100 maximum points) to each pricing category 

in accordance with the weighting identified in the solicitation. Accordingly, the most 

important category, inpatient facility services, was assigned [Deleted] points, and 

second most important category, outpatient facility services, was assigned [Deleted]

points, and each successive category was assigned less points. The lowest rate or 

price in a particular category would be assigned the maximum number of points in 

that category, and other rates and prices would receive a proportional share of 

points. See AR, Vol. I, Tab 4, Source Selection Plan, at 6.

4 The agency included one of Seven Corners’ three proposals.
Page 4 B-406695; B-406695.2 

BOP received and evaluated revised proposals.5 In its revised proposal, NaphCare 

addressed the agency’s concerns about the on-site scheduler and the [Deleted]. 

With respect to the use of the [Deleted] facilities, NaphCare informed BOP as 

follows:

NaphCare understands we have a significant weakness in our 

proposal by not offering all the services available within the 

[Deleted]. Currently, due to the contract terms with the system, we 

are only able to offer the [Deleted]. NaphCare has an agreement 

with [Deleted] that covers all [Deleted] hospitals and all level of 

services and if an award is made to us, [Deleted] will be available to 

the [Federal Correctional Complex] at a [Deleted].

6

AR, Vol. II, Tab 3, NaphCare Revised Proposal Cover Letter, at 1.

The agency held additional discussions with NaphCare and requested that 

NaphCare reconsider offering all facilities/physician providers under the [Deleted]

network and that offering inpatient physician services under a facility out of network 

was a significant weakness. AR, Tab 21, Discussions with NaphCare, at 9.

In response to the agency’s request for final proposal revisions, NaphCare submitted 

two revised proposals: NaphCare A and NaphCare B. BOP only considered the 

NaphCare A proposal because the NaphCare B proposal was received late.7

 The 

protester’s NaphCare A proposal included inpatient facility services at [Deleted] and 

[Deleted] with alternate outpatient facility services available at [Deleted] and 

[Deleted]. Id. NaphCare stated that it was removing [Deleted] in its entirety along 

with the affiliated physicians. Id. NaphCare again stated that it understood that not 

offering all services available within the [Deleted] was a significant weakness. AR, 

Vol. II, Tab 5, NaphCare’s Final Revised Proposal Cover letter, at 1.

 5 Seven Corners submitted its revised proposal late, and it was not evaluated. The 

agency, however, considered Seven Corners’ initial proposal. Contracting Officer’s 

Statement at 7.

6 The Contracting Officer states that this indicated that any additional services 

([Deleted]) provided by [Deleted] would be at a [Deleted] and would need to be 

addressed/negotiated (case-by-case basis) after an award and ultimately could be a 

higher rate than the awarded contract rates. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 9.

7 The NaphCare B proposal included inpatient and outpatient facility services at 

[Deleted]. AR, Vol. II, Tab 4, NaphCare’s Final Proposal Revision Cover letter, at 1. 

NaphCare stated in this proposal that NaphCare could not provide other hospitals in 

the [Deleted] network because the [Deleted]. Id.
Page 5 B-406695; B-406695.2 

The firms’ final revised proposals were evaluated by the TEP and SSA. During the 

course of his evaluation, the SSA asked the TEP chair to provide him with the 

agency’s current utilization rates for area hospitals. See AR, Vol. I, Tab 23, SSA 

Email to TEP Chair, Feb. 24, 2012. The TEP chair identified the agency’s utilization 

rates as follows: Williamsport – [Deleted]; Divine –[Deleted]; Muncy – [Deleted]; 

Evangelical – [Deleted]; Bloomsburg – [Deleted]; Jersey Shore – [Deleted]; and 

Sunbury – [Deleted]. Id. The SSA states that the intent of the request was to get a 

better understanding of where the inmates were receiving services and the 

importance of the [Deleted] being offered at [Deleted] by NaphCare. Contracting 

Officer’s Statement at 10. 

Final revised proposals were evaluated as follows:

Offeror A Offeror B Seven Corners NaphCare

Technical Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Marginal

Past Performance Very Good Very Good Exceptional Very Good

SDB Participation Very Good Very Good Marginal Very Good

Price 90.447 90.775 85.745 99.262

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 11.

The SSA determined that the final revised proposals of Seven Corners and Offerors 

A and B were essentially equal, because all three offerors proposed a wide variety of 

facilities and physician services that were estimated to meet all of the requirements. 

AR, Vol. I, Tab 25, Initial Source Selection Decision, at 10. The SSA concluded that 

these firms’ offers of multiple points of delivery for inpatient facility services provided 

a security benefit to the agency. Id. The SSA found that NaphCare’s final revised 

proposal “suffer[ed] primarily from its limited diversity of facility services” close to the 

Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex and that based on the agency’s current 

utilization rates, under the NaphCare proposal most of the inmates in the Allenwood 

Federal Correctional Complex would have to be transported a prolonged distance, 

which represented a significant security risk. Id. The SSA decided that Offeror A’s 

proposal reflected the best value and that this firm’s price premium was merited 

given the security risks represented by the NaphCare proposal. Id.

Following his initial selection decision, the SSA rejected the revised proposals of 

Offerors A and B. See Contracting Officer’s Statement at 11. The SSA prepared a 

new selection decision, comparing the revised proposals of NaphCare and Seven 

Corners. AR, Vol. I, Tab 26, Amended Source Selection Decision, at 4. Again the 

SSA concluded that NaphCare’s primary weakness was the limited diversity of 

facility services proposed by NaphCare close to the Allenwood Federal Correctional 

Complex. Id. at 6. The SSA noted that Seven Corners’ evaluated price was higher 

than NaphCare’s, but that Seven Corners provided an expanded network of services 
Page 6 B-406695; B-406695.2 

within a driving distance of 32 miles that mitigated costs and security risks presented 

by the NaphCare proposal. Id. The SSA determined that given the inherent 

dangers of transporting inmates for prolonged periods outside of a secure perimeter, 

and the relatively minor differences in pricing between Seven Corners’ and 

NaphCare’s proposals, Seven Corners’ revised proposal presented the best value to 

the agency. Id. 

Award was made to Seven Corners, and NaphCare protested to our Office, following 

a debriefing.

DISCUSSION

The protester raises numerous arguments challenging the agency’s evaluation of its 

proposal and its selection decision. We have reviewed the record in light of the 

protester’s numerous allegations and find nothing unreasonable about the agency’s 

evaluation of proposals or the selection decision.

NaphCare first complains that BOP’s assessment that the protester’s proposal was 

marginal under the technical factor was unreasonable. In this regard, NaphCare

notes a number of aspects of its proposal, which the protester contends should have 

been found acceptable, and contends that it should have received an satisfactory, 

rather than marginal, rating under the technical factor. For example, NaphCare 

notes that the TEP assessed as a strength in its proposal under the level of diversity 

of services subfactor that NaphCare offered a vast variety of off-site specialists and 

subspecialists. See Protester’s Comments and Supp. Protest at 3-4; see also AR, 

Vol. I, Tab 11, NaphCare Final Consensus Evaluation, at 22.

In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selection 

decisions, it is not our role to reevaluate submissions; rather, we will examine the 

record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord 

with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations. 

Panacea Consulting, Inc., B-299307.4, B-299308.4, July 27, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 141 

at 3. A protester’s mere disagreement with an agency’s judgment is not sufficient to 

establish that an agency acted unreasonably. Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, 

Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 70 at 3. With respect to color or adjectival ratings, we 

have recognized that they are merely guides for intelligent decision-making in the 

procurement process. Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., 

B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 11. Where an agency 

reasonably considers the underlying bases for the ratings, including the advantages 

and disadvantages associated with the specific content of competing proposals, in a 

manner that is fair and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, the protester’s 

disagreement over the adjectival or color ratings is essentially inconsequential in that

it does not affect the reasonableness of the judgments made in the source selection 

decision. Sherrick Aerospace, B-310359.2, Jan. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 17 at 6.
Page 7 B-406695; B-406695.2 

Here, the record shows that SSA’s judgment as to the respective technical merit of 

NaphCare’s and Seven Corners’ proposals was based primarily on the limitations of 

the protester’s proposed hospital network, including its primary hospital, [Deleted], 

as compared to Seven Corner’s proposed network. The SSA noted that NaphCare 

proposed two hospitals, [Deleted], for inpatient services, see AR, Vol. I, Tab 25, 

Source Selection Decision, at 1, where Seven Corners proposed [Deleted] and four 

additional hospitals for inpatient services. Id. at 7. Also, NaphCare proposed 4 

hospitals for outpatient services, one of which was [Deleted] miles away from 

Allenwood, see id., where Seven Corners proposed 6 hospitals for outpatient 

services, the largest of which was only 14 miles from Allenwood. Id. at 7, 8. 

NaphCare identified a total of [Deleted] physicians in [Deleted] specialties while 

Seven Corners identified 461 physicians in 43 specialties. Id. at 2, 7. The SSA 

concluded that Seven Corners’ proposal presented more technical merit because 

Seven Corners proposed a wide variety of facilities that would meet all of 

Allenwood’s requirements and that Seven Corners’ proposal of multiple points of 

delivery of inpatient facility services was a security benefit. In contrast, the SSA 

found that the NaphCare solution would be able to meet 25 percent of the 

requirements within a 32-mile distance and would likely be able to provide the 

remainder of the requirements, but at a facility that was approximately [Deleted]

miles away, which represented a security risk.

Although the protester disagrees with the SSA’s judgment and argues that its 

proposal deserved a higher adjectival rating, it has not shown that the evaluation or 

selection decision was unreasonable. Whether or not the protester’s proposal 

deserved a higher rating, the record shows that the SSA reasonably evaluated the 

underlying merit of both firms’ proposals and reasonably determined that Seven 

Corners’ proposal reflected technical superiority.8

NaphCare also complains that the SSA’s consideration of the agency’s current 

utilization rates of various local hospitals was unreasonable because the SSA 

treated these rates as reflecting the upper limit of the number of inmates each local 

hospital could handle and otherwise failed to consider NaphCare’s proposed 

capacity to provide necessary services. See Protester’s Comments and Supp. 

 8 Contrary to NaphCare’s belief, the assignment of a strength under the level of 

diversity subfactor for offering “a vast variety of off-site specialists and 

subspecialists,” see AR, Vol. I, Tab 11, NaphCare Final Consensus Evaluation, 

at 22, is not inconsistent with the TEP’s determination that NaphCare’s proposed 

hospital network was limited. In this regard, the TEP noted a number of weaknesses 

arising from NaphCare’s limited network, including under the level of diversity of 

services subfactor. Under that subfactor, the TEP noted, among other things, that 

NaphCare proposed [Deleted] for primary services, but that [Deleted] did not have 

required subspecialists. Id.
Page 8 B-406695; B-406695.2 

Protest at 24-25. NaphCare also argues that the record does not reflect a reasoned 

judgment as to whether the agency’s past utilization rates were “meaningfully 

predictive of future utilization rates.” Id. at 27. NaphCare also complains that the 

agency’s evaluation and selection decision reflected an unstated preference for the 

[Deleted] hospital. Id. at 29-32.

Here, the record contains a detailed source selection decision, explaining the basis 

of the SSA’s judgment that Seven Corners’ proposal reflected the best value to the 

agency considering technical merit and price. Contrary to the protester’s arguments 

challenging the SSA’s reliance on the agency’s current utilization rates for local 

hospitals, the record shows that the SSA merely used these utilization rates to 

measure the potential performance risks to the agency presented by NaphCare’s 

more limited hospital network. Although NaphCare disagrees with the SSA’s 

judgment concerning the protester’s more limited hospital network, this 

disagreement does not show that the SSA unreasonably concluded that NaphCare’s 

proposal presented greater performance risk than Seven Corners more expansive 

network.

NaphCare also protests that the SSA failed to meaningfully consider price in his 

selection decision. Specifically, NaphCare complains that the SSA never 

determined what the cost of performance would be under the firms’ respective 

proposals. See Protester’s Comments at 28. Although NaphCare is correct that the 

agency did not determine a total evaluated price for each offeror, this was consistent 

with the RFP price evaluation scheme. The RFP provided that agency would 

evaluate offerors’ proposed rates under various pricing categories, which were 

identified in descending order of importance in the RFP. See RFP at 4-9, 39. The 

RFP did not provide for calculating or evaluating an overall proposed price. See id.

at 39. If NaphCare disagreed with this pricing evaluation scheme, it should have 

protested this alleged solicitation impropriety before the closing time for receipt of 
Page 9 B-406695; B-406695.2 

initial proposals. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2012); Ball Aerospace & Techs. Corp., 

B-402148, Jan. 25, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 37 at 4-5.

The protest is denied. 9

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 9 The protester also argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions 

regarding NaphCare’s on-site scheduler. Comments and Supplemental Protest at 

38. The protester contends that it was prejudiced by the alleged lack of meaningful 

discussions, maintaining that it could have proposed a full-time on-site scheduler. 

We conclude that NaphCare has not established it was prejudiced by the alleged 

impropriety. Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest; where 

the protester fails to demonstrate that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have 

had a substantial chance of receiving the award, there is not a basis for finding 

prejudice, and our Office will not sustain the protest. Joint Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., 

B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 208 at 7. The record shows 

that there is no reasonable possibility that NaphCare’s proposal of a full-time on-site 

scheduler would have affected the SSA’s selection decision here. As explained 

above, the basis for the SSA’s selection of Seven Corners’ proposal over 

NaphCare’s was that NaphCare did not provide the diversity of service that Seven 

Corners offered.