Deployable Hospital Systems, Inc.

Deployable Hospital Systems, Inc. BNUMBER: B-260778.2; B-260778.3 DATE: February 12, 1996 TITLE: Deployable Hospital Systems, Inc. ********************************************************************** REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Deployable Hospital Systems, Inc. File: B-260778.2; B-260778.3 Date: February 12, 1996 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for the protester. Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., Bean, Kinney & Korman, for TVI Corporation, an interested party. Robert B. Tauchen, Esq., and Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that contracting agency improperly determined that awardee satisfied a definitive responsibility criterion requiring it to provide evidence of recent sales of the item being procured or similar items is denied where the agency's determination that the awardee's recent sales constituted sales of "similar items" is fully and reasonably supported. 2. Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated awardee's financial capability as part of the technical evaluation by ignoring evidence questioning the findings of a pre-award survey is denied where the contracting officer considered this evidence and reasonably determined, notwithstanding that information, that the firm remained financially capable of performing the contract. 3. Protest asserting disparate treatment and improper evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation of proposals was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria save for one aspect, and correction of this aspect of the evaluation in the manner most favorable to the protester would not affect the reasonableness of the award determination since, at most, the two offerors would be approximately technically equal; the protester's price is significantly higher than that of the awardee; and the agency reasonably states that such a result would not have affected its best value determination. DECISION Deployable Hospital Systems, Inc. (DHS) protests the Department of the Air Force's decision to affirm its award of a contract, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA0021-95-R-0009, to TVI Corporation after having implemented our recommendation in Deployable Hosp. Sys., Inc., B-260778, July 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 65. In that decision, we sustained DHS' protest of the original award to TVI because the Air Force's failure to document its technical evaluation and its determination that TVI satisfied a definitive responsibility criterion compelled a conclusion that they lacked a reasonable basis. DHS now challenges various aspects of the Air Force's reevaluation and the subsequent award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation sought offers for a fixed-price contract for deployable integrated mobile hospital tent systems. A total system satisfying the requirement consisted of shelters--or tents--and their associated equipment, packed within trailers providing transport, storage, electrical power, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) support. Award was to be made to the offeror providing the best overall value to the government. Proposals would be evaluated based on an integrated assessment of quality and price, with quality somewhat more important than price. Quality encompassed two equally important evaluation factors, technical quality and quality control. The technical quality factor contained four subfactors, in descending order of importance: technical specification compliance, interoperability, total system, and expeditious setup. The importance of price was to increase as the quality differences between proposals decreased. The RFP also listed, as less important, several general considerations that would be considered in the technical evaluation, including pre-award survey results, financial capability, and level of experience in similar acquisitions. Section LH-173 of the RFP discussed the contracting officer's need to make a responsibility determination and required offerors to provide, as a minimum, a list of the three most recent sales of "this or similar items/services" to commercial concerns or government activities. TVI and DHS were the only offerors submitting proposals. Each offeror submitted a technical proposal, a price proposal, and a training videotape.