Superior Optical Labs, Inc.; Diversified Ophthalmics, Inc., B-294662; B-294662.2, December 9, 2004

Superior Optical Labs, Inc.; Diversified Ophthalmics, Inc., B-294662; B-294662.2, December 9, 2004 TITLE: Superior Optical Labs, Inc.; Diversified Ophthalmics, Inc., B-294662; B-294662.2, December 9, 2004 BNUMBER: B-294662; B-294662.2 DATE: December 9, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Superior Optical Labs, Inc.; Diversified Ophthalmics, Inc. File: B-294662; B-294662.2 Date: December 9, 2004 Colin H. Luke, Esq., Balch & Bingham, for the protesters. Dennis Foley, Esq., and Philip Kauffman, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably did not question authority to bind offeror of individual who signed successful offer where offer designated him as contractor's administrative representative with binding authority to act on behalf of the contractor on administrative matters pertaining to the contract. 2. Allegation that awardee violated Anti-Kickback Act and Federal Healthcare Anti-Kickback Act will not be considered by GAO because both statutes impose criminal penalties for their violation, and GAO has no jurisdiction over alleged violations of criminal laws. 3. Protest of scoring of technical proposals is denied where it is apparent that protesters suffered no prejudice as a result of alleged evaluation errors. 4. Federal Acquisition Regulation S 52.219-14 (Limitation on Subcontracting) has no application where solicitation is unrestricted. DECISION Superior Optical Labs, Inc. and Diversified Ophthalmics, Inc. protest the rejection of their proposals and the award of a contract to Barnett & Ramel Optical Company (B&R) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 541-039-04, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the provision of eyeglasses to VA beneficiaries in Ohio. The protesters take issue with the agency's evaluation of the proposals. We deny the protests. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base and 4 option years. The contractor was to furnish eyeglass-dispensing services at nine different VA Medical Centers and outpatient clinics across Ohio. For each year, offerors were requested to furnish prices for an estimated quantity of frames and for estimated quantities of each of six different types of lenses (single vision glass/plastic, bifocal glass/plastic, and trifocal glass/plastic). Offerors were also requested to furnish prices for 14 line items representing estimated quantities of various upgrades and related items (e.g., anti-reflective coating). The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. Proposals were to be evaluated in accordance with the following scheme: 1. Quality of Sample Frames--Sample frames shall be of quality nature and durable with warranty. Selection of frames shall be appropriate for male and female with current style. 30 POINTS 2. Technical Capabilities--Length of time in exact business, education certificates, distribution capabilities. Management methods used to insure accountability, timely and quality service. Rating will be based upon written management plan that shows how orders are tracked and processed and managed throughout the life cycle. 30 POINTS 3. Delivery of Prescriptions--How fast and to what extent can the offeror provide normal and expedited prescriptions. Rating will be based on information submitted pertaining to capability for normal and expedited prescriptions as well as verifiable references as it compares to offerors. Offerors must submit a[t] least (3) references for past performance history. 20 POINTS 4. Price--Pricing for estimated quantities shall be evaluated for price reasonableness based on competitive price offers. 20 POINTS RFP at 39. The RFP further provided that technical and past performance, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Three offerors submitted proposals by the April 9, 2004 closing date.