Norvar Health Services--Protest and Reconsideration, B-286253.2; B-286253.3; B-286253.4, December 8, 2000

Norvar Health Services--Protest and Reconsideration, B-286253.2; B-286253.3; B-286253.4, December 8, 2000 TITLE: Norvar Health Services--Protest and Reconsideration, B-286253.2; B-286253.3; B-286253.4, December 8, 2000 BNUMBER: B-286253.2; B-286253.3; B-286253.4 DATE: December 8, 2000 ********************************************************************** Norvar Health Services--Protest and Reconsideration, B-286253.2; B-286253.3; B-286253.4, December 8, 2000 Decision Matter of: Norvar Health Services--Protest and Reconsideration File: B-286253.2; B-286253.3; B-286253.4 Date: December 8, 2000 Robert M. Cambridge, Esq., for the protester. John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Jennifer A. Mahar, Esq., and Nils R. Kessler, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, for Hunter Medical, Inc., an intervenor. Charles A. Walden, Esq., and James E. Hicks, Esq., Drug Enforcement Administration, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's contention that the agency is acting improperly in conducting a reopened competition by permitting submission of revised prices despite the release of the protester's award price in the earlier competition during postaward debriefings of unsuccessful offerors is denied where the disclosure was made pursuant to the debriefing requirements in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); disclosure of an awardee's price and rating (or ranking) under these circumstances does not create an improper competitive advantage. 2. Protest alleging that the agency violated the guidelines set forth at FAR sect. 15.507, regarding competitions reopened in response to a protest, is denied where the agency concedes that it failed to advise the protester of the information regarding its proposal provided to unsuccessful offerors during their postaward debriefings, but the protester is unable to demonstrate how it was prejudiced by not receiving this information given the significant revisions to the solicitation between the initial and reopened competitions. 3. Request for reconsideration of issues dismissed during development of a protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party to raise them is denied where the reconsideration request raises arguments that the protester could have made, but did not, in its initial protest, and where those arguments are now untimely. DECISION Norvar Health Services protests a decision by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to terminate a contract initially awarded to Norvar, and to reopen discussions with, and request final revised proposals from, Norvar and all other offerors in the competitive range. In a supplemental protest, Norvar claims that the agency failed to follow the guidelines applicable to reopened procurements set forth at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.507 by failing to provide Norvar with the information about its proposal provided to Hunter during its earlier postaward debriefing. In addition, Norvar requests reconsideration of a decision by our Office dismissing several, but not all, of the issues raised in Norvar's initial protest. We deny the protest and the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The underlying solicitation here, request for proposals (RFP) No. DEA-00-R-0002, anticipated award of a fixed-price contract for the facilities, staff, materials, and equipment necessary to provide non-personal healthcare services at the DEA headquarters facility in Arlington, Virginia, as well as at field offices in Newark, New Jersey, and New York, New York. On September 7, 2000, DEA awarded the contract to Norvar at a price of $6.3 million for the base period and four 12-month options. Five days later, on September 12, a disappointed offeror, Hunter Medical, Inc., filed a protest with our Office alleging that the award was improper. On September 28, DEA advised our Office, Norvar and Hunter, that it would be canceling the award to Norvar and reopening the procurement. DEA explained that it was taking this action because it had "identified an anomaly in the acquisition process other than those arguments put forward in the protest filed by Hunter Medical." DEA Corrective Action Letter, Sept. 28, 2000. The letter also advised that, in the interim, DEA would meet its ongoing needs through an extension of Hunter's incumbent contract. As a result, our Office dismissed Hunter's protest as academic. Hunter Med., Inc., B-286253, Sept. 28, 2000. By letter dated September 29, Norvar filed an agency-level protest with DEA challenging the decision to reopen the procurement, terminate Norvar's contract, and extend Hunter's contract in the interim.