Rotech Medical Corporation, B-283295.2, November 8, 1999

B-283295.2 Nov 08, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably determined that the awardee's proposed staffing and facilities approach was better than the protester's. Agency was not required to contact the protester's past performance references. Nor was the agency required to contact the accrediting organization to investigate the information. The offeror was to document. Lors was found to have submitted the highest-rated and lowest-priced proposal. Lors's proposal was priced 28 percent less than Rotech's next lowest-priced proposal. Rotech's proposal was the lowest-rated of the competitive range proposals. It is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Our Office examines the record only to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation factors. View Decision Matter of: Rotech Medical Corporation File: B-283295.2 Date: November 8, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Rotech Medical Corporation protests the award of a contract to Lors Medical Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 247-001-99, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for the provision of home oxygen services in the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) #7 covering Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a variety of supplies and services associated with home oxygen care to veterans. RFP Sec. 216-1. The RFP, as amended, requested unit and extended prices for the various supplies and services for a base year plus 4 option years. RFP addendum to Standard Form 1449 – Block #20. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, would be most advantageous to the government, based on a scoring system recognizing the solicitation's evaluation factors. RFP Sec. 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items. The RFP listed four evaluation factors in descending order of importance, which the agency quantified on an internal 100-point scoring scale consistent with the RFP, as follows: (1) past performance and demonstrated capability (35 points), (2) quality assurance (30 points), (3) personnel qualifications (20 points), and (4) cost/pricing (15 points). Id.; Agency Report, Tab 12, Evaluation Criteria & Scoring Sheet. Under the past performance and demonstrated capability factor, the offeror was to document, among other things, its ability to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained personnel and its ability to meet the solicitation's response time requirements for supplies and services based on the sites and staff proposed for performance. RFP addendum to Sec. 52.212-2, Para. B.2, B.3.a. VA received eight initial proposals and, after evaluating them, included six, including Lors's and Rotech's, in the competitive range. Agency Report at 3. The agency conducted a round of discussions and received offerors' final proposal revisions (referred to in the record as "refined proposals"). Id. Lors was found to have submitted the highest-rated and lowest-priced proposal. Agency Report, Tab 21, Technical Scores (Final), Pricing Scores (Final). Lors's proposal also received the highest combined technical and price score of 92.53 points, scoring 77.53 of the available 85 technical points and the maximum number of price points (15 points). Lors's proposal was priced 28 percent less than Rotech's next lowest-priced proposal; Rotech's price score (10.87 points) reflected this price disadvantage. In terms of technical merit, Rotech's proposal was the lowest-rated of the competitive range proposals, scoring only 49.48 out of 85 technical points. Rotech's proposal also received the lowest combined price and technical score of 60.35 points. Based on the price and technical evaluation results, the agency made award based on Lors's highest-rated, lowest-priced proposal. Rotech protests that VA misevaluated aspects of its own and Lors's proposal. In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record only to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation factors. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., B-276247, May 27, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 195 at 3. The fact that a protester does not agree with the agency's evaluation does not render the evaluation unreasonable. TRW, Inc., B-260623 et al., July 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 92 at 6. Rotech first argues that the agency misevaluated its and Lors's proposals under the past performance and demonstrated capability factor. In particular, Rotech argues that it operates more service centers and employs more personnel than Lors within the VISN #7 service area. Protester's Comments Para. 4.