Knit-Rite, Inc., B-293088.3, August 5, 2004

B-293088.3 Aug 05, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Knit-Rite, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Southern Hosiery Mills, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-NC-03-0024, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for diabetic socks. KnitRite challenges the technical evaluation and the award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293088.3, Knit-Rite, Inc., August 5, 2004 Decision Matter of: Knit-Rite, Inc. File: B-293088.3 Date: August 5, 2004 David Taylor, Esq., Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale, for the protester. Maura C. Brown, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In procurement of socks for use by diabetic patients, where evaluation was based on medical judgments of evaluators with substantial expertise in the field, GAO will not question such medical judgments in the absence of any showing that product testing was unfairly administered. 2. Agency's use of subjective, rather than objective, technical evaluation methodology--the evaluators' ratings were based on their findings from walking in the socks--was unobjectionable where approach was consistent with solicitation plan, which specifically advised that a subjective evaluation of the socks would be performed. DECISION Knit-Rite, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Southern Hosiery Mills, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-NC-03-0024, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for diabetic socks. KnitRite challenges the technical evaluation and the award decision. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixedprice requirements contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, for quantities of diabetic socks. Offerors were required to submit product samples that were to be evaluated by experts in treating VA's elderly diabetic population and other patients at risk of limb-threatening foot problems. The evaluation was to consist of an initial determination of whether the offered items met the minimum requirements and, for those found acceptable, an evaluation under three factors--technical, price and quality/past performance (in descending order of importance). Award was to be made, without discussions, to the offeror whose proposal would be most advantageous to the government, that is, on a best value basis. The agency received proposals from 32 offerors, including KnitRite and Southern. The technical evaluation panel (TEP), which included two doctors of podiatry and a chief of prosthetics trained as an orthotist, evaluated each proposed sock. Agency Report (AR) at 5. The TEP rejected a significant number of socks in the initial evaluation and then evaluated those remaining. The final evaluation for KnitRite and Southern was as follows: KnitRite Southern Technical Fair Acceptable Price $3,080,000 $1,572,200 Past Performance Acceptable Acceptable Prior to the agency's making an award determination, another offeror, Apex Foot Health Industries, filed a protest with our Office challenging the rejection of its offered socks. The procurement was suspended until issuance of our decision denying Apex's protest. See Apex Foot Health Indus. , B293088, Jan. 23, 2004, 2004 CPD 30. After the resolution of that protest, the contracting specialist reviewed the TEP's evaluations and conducted a tradeoff analysis between Southern and each of the other offerors, concluded that Southern's proposal represented the best value, and recommended that Southern receive the award. The contracting officer agreed with the recommendation and awarded Southern the contract. This protest followed. [2] KnitRite asserts that the technical evaluation and award decision were flawed because the TEP used a subjective, rather than an objective, technical evaluation methodology, and thus improperly concluded that its sock was inferior to the awardee's. In reviewing a protest of an agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision, our review ordinarily extends to determining whether the agency acted reasonably and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. United Def. LP , B-286925.3 et al. , Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD 75 at1011. However, we have held that matters involving medical judgments and policies are inappropriate for review under our bid protest function. Apex Foot Health Indus. , supra , at 3; GlaxoSmithKline, B291822, Apr. 7, 2003, 2003 CPD 77 at5. The scope of the evaluation here, and the agency's determination that KnitRite's sock was, at best, overall fair in meeting the stated requirements, involve such medical considerations.