Life Oxygen & Health Services, Inc., B-282243, June 18, 1999

B-282243 Jun 18, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where TET nevertheless determined that increase was warranted and. Award was to be made to the responsible firm whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the government. Offerors' proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of past performance questionnaires from the references listed in each offeror's proposal. Among the proposals received by the amended December 30 closing date were Life Oxygen's and Resp-A-Care's. Both were included in the competitive range. Life Oxygen maintains that it should have received a higher score in light of the favorable past performance questionnaire submitted by the [deleted] of Mariner Health Care. We will not reevaluate the proposals. View Decision Matter of: Life Oxygen & Health Services, Inc. File: B-282243 Date: June 18, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Life Oxygen & Health Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Rotech Medical Corporation, also known as Resp-A-Care, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 249-01-99, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for home oxygen services at seven VA medical centers located in Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Life Oxygen principally challenges the evaluation of its and the awardee's proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on October 20, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, to furnish all rental, delivery, supplies, oxygen, and related services. RFP at 3. Award was to be made to the responsible firm whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the government, based on the following (with available points out of 100 total): (1) prior experience and demonstrated capability (30 points); (2) quality assurance (30 points); (3) past performance (20 points); and (4) cost (20 points). RFP at 51; Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. With regard to past performance, offerors' proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of past performance questionnaires from the references listed in each offeror's proposal. RFP at 50; Agency Report at 2. The RFP required offerors to provide no more or less than three references for verification of past performance. RFP at 50. Among the proposals received by the amended December 30 closing date were Life Oxygen's and Resp-A-Care's; both were included in the competitive range. Agency Report at 2. Following written discussions on the technical proposals, the agency requested and received best and final offers (BAFO). The agency then held price discussions and requested and received revised BAFOs. The technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the revised BAFOs as follows: Technical Price score Life Oxygen 87.7 $9,087,516.00 Resp-A-Care 90.5 12,547,084.32 Agency Report encl. 17, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 2, 3. Based on the prices and technical scores, the VA made award to Resp-A-Care. Id. at 2. PAST PERFORMANCE Life Oxygen's proposal received 13.7 of the 20 available points under the past performance factor. Life Oxygen maintains that it should have received a higher score in light of the favorable past performance questionnaire submitted by the [deleted] of Mariner Health Care, one of the references listed in Life Oxygen's proposal. Agency Report encl. 12, Life Oxygen's BAFO Evaluation, at 3; Protest at 1; Comments at 2. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will not reevaluate the proposals; rather, we will examine the record only to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation scheme. Development Alternatives, Inc., B-279920, Aug. 6, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 54 at 4. The evaluation in this area was reasonable. The questionnaire to which the protester refers covered a contract under which Life Oxygen provided durable medical equipment (DME), a requirement which (the agency advised our Office during a conference call) is not as involved as an oxygen supply contract such as the one here. Agency Report at 3 n.4, 5 n.9. The agency reports that it received two questionnaires signed by Mariner's [deleted], one for DME and one for oxygen supply, and because the solicitation called for precisely three questionnaires to be considered and consideration of both Mariner questionnaires would have led to a total of four, it considered the questionnaire which covered work by Life Oxygen on a home oxygen services contract and did not consider the questionnaire related to the firm's work on a DME contract. Agency Report at 5. On Mariner's questionnaire covering the oxygen services work, Life Oxygen was assigned only the second of three possible ratings for each of the questions and, with regard to whether the reference would recommend Life Oxygen for future contracts and would use them again for their current contract, the reference indicated only "maybe." Agency Report encl.