B-296231.2; B-296231.3, Med Optical, September 7, 2005

B-296231.2; B-296231.3, Med Optical, September 7, 2005 TITLE: B-296231.2; B-296231.3, Med Optical, September 7, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296231.2; B-296231.3 DATE: September 7, 2005 ****************************************************** B-296231.2; B-296231.3, Med Optical, September 7, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Med Optical File: B-296231.2; B-296231.3 Date: September 7, 2005 Joseph M. Goldstein, Esq., Shutts & Bowen LLP, for the protester. William J. Cea, Esq., Becker & Poliakoff, PA, for Vision MarketPlace, Inc., an intervenor. Merilee Rosenberg, Esq., and Dennis Foley, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance was improper is denied where the record supports the agency's evaluation. 2. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where the alleged evaluation errors did not result in competitive prejudice to protester. DECISION Med Optical protests the award of a contract to Vision MarketPlace, Inc. (VMP) by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 546-18-05 to supply prescription eyeglasses and eye exams to veterans in Broward County, Florida. Med Optical primarily asserts in its original protest that the awardee failed to offer a facility that dispenses eyeglasses and eye exams and is located within 5 miles of the nearest VA medical facility, as required by the RFP, and that the agency improperly evaluated VMP's past performance. In a supplemental protest, Med Optical asserts that its ranking was improperly reduced from second to fourth place during the reevaluation of proposals.[1] We deny the protest. On January 18, 2005, the VA issued the solicitation, set aside for small businesses, for a 1-year indefinite-quantity, fixed-price contract with 2 option years, to furnish prescription eyeglasses and eye exams to veteran beneficiaries in five Florida counties, including Broward County. Offerors could submit offers for any or all of the five locations. The solicitation requires that a contractor have a facility that furnishes prescription eyeglasses and eye exams that is within 5 miles of the nearest VA medical facility and is located within the respective county. Award was to be made to the firm determined to have submitted the proposal deemed most advantageous to the government. In addition to price, the RFP contained the following technical evaluation factors: demonstrated capability, quality assurance, personnel qualifications, and past performance. The RFP also identified subfactors for each of these criteria. Each of these four factors was of equal importance; when considered together, they were significantly more important than price. The solicitation stated that offerors were to submit past performance information directly related to the "[d]epth and relevancy of work experience in providing similar services for similar customers," and to "[p]rovide at least three (3) references, letters or recommendations." RFP at 55-56. On February 18, six proposals were opened for the Broward County location, including those from Med Optical and VMP. One offer lacked a technical proposal and was not considered. With regard to the facility location requirement, VMP's proposal listed four locations in Broward County: Coral Springs, Tamarac, Deerfield Beach, and Aventura. To address the past performance factor, VMP listed four references in its proposal: the VA office in Birmingham, Alabama; the Florida Department of Education; the Virginia Department for the Visually Handicapped; and the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. In addition, VMP supplied several letters of recommendation, including one each from its first two references. After the technical evaluation team analyzed the proposals, award was made to VMP. Med Optical protested that award on April 13, challenging the acceptability of VMP's proposal under the facility location requirement and the agency's evaluation of VMP's past performance. On May 12, the VA notified our Office that, while it rejected the allegations contained in Med Optical's protest, it would nevertheless take corrective action due to problems the agency found with the evaluations. We dismissed the protest on May 13. After the proposals were reevaluated, the average point scores for both VMP and Med Optical declined.