American Medical Depot, B-285060; B-285060.2; B-285060.3, July 12, 2000

American Medical Depot, B-285060; B-285060.2; B-285060.3, July 12, 2000 TITLE: American Medical Depot, B-285060; B-285060.2; B-285060.3, July 12, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285060; B-285060.2; B-285060.3 DATE: July 12, 2000 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: American Medical Depot File: B-285060; B-285060.2; B-285060.3 Date: July 12, 2000 Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, for the protester. Barbara J. Stuetzer, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Exclusion of proposal from competitive range is unobjectionable where agency reasonably concluded that the proposal contained informational deficiencies and other weaknesses that warranted an evaluation rating of marginally acceptable, and the proposed price was relatively high, so that the proposal had no reasonable chance of being selected for award. 2. Although price proposals were improperly evaluated, protest is nonetheless denied where the agency's error inured to the benefit of the protester. 3. Amendment of solicitation after competitive range has been determined does not require revising the competitive range determination where the amendment does not materially change the basis on which initial offers were solicited and submitted. DECISION American Medical Depot (AMD) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-MSPV-99-1005, for the distribution of medical and surgical supplies to specified VA facilities. AMD primarily challenges the evaluation of proposals which led to the competitive range determination. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on June 10, 1999, contemplated an award to a single supplier, known as a "Medical Surgical Prime Vendor," to act as the source of distribution for a broad range of medical and surgical products as required by the VA Medical Center in San Juan, Puerto Rico and its four outlying clinics (two in Puerto Rico and two in the U.S. Virgin Islands). As amended, the RFP required the prime vendor to commence performance of the contract within 90 days of award. RFP amend. 1, at 2. The RFP pricing structure separates the product price from the distribution fee, RFP part II, sect. 4.1, and calls for offerors to propose percentage-based distribution fees. The distribution fee is a markup to the product prices established under other federal government contracts, primarily the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), the Veterans Integrated Service Network, or local agreements, and is intended to cover the prime vendor's costs for managing the customer's inventory, ensuring the timely delivery of needed products to the customer in a more efficient and effective manner than other conventional ordering methods, and administering electronic commerce systems in support of the program. VA National Acquisition Center Database, . A single contract for a base year with four 1-year option periods was to be awarded to the responsible offeror whose offer conformed to the solicitation and represented the best overall value, price and technical factors considered. RFP part VII, at 77. The RFP listed (in descending order of importance) the following technical evaluation factors, which, combined, would be somewhat more important than price in the source selection: Technical Excellence: (1) Distribution and Logistics Management (2) Product Availability (3) Price Accuracy and Management Information Systems (4) Implementation of Prime Vendor Plan Past Performance Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Id. Part VI of the RFP provided detailed instructions regarding the information that should be included in technical proposals. The solicitation advised that, while the importance of price would increase as a proposal's overall rating became more equal to those for competing offers, the government was more concerned with superior past performance history and technical features than award at the lowest distribution fee. Id. The RFP cautioned offerors that the government intended to award the contract without holding discussions, although it reserved the right to do so if necessary. Id. On June 29,1999, the VA held a pre-proposal conference in Puerto Rico which was attended by representatives of 11 firms, including AMD, to explain and clarify the requirements of the solicitation to all interested potential offerors. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. Following the conference, the agency provided conference minutes to all of the conference attendees, in addition to publishing the minutes on the Internet. The minutes include a vendor's question regarding the applicability of a provision of Puerto Rican law known as "Law 75," which was not referenced in the RFP.