B-297397.3, New England Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc.--Costs, February 2, 2006

B-297397.3 Feb 02, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights New England Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. (NERT) requests that we recommend that the firm be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protests of the award of a contract to Radiation Oncology Associates (ROA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 00241-05-00289, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for radiation therapy services at the VA Medical Center in Providence, Rhode Island. We deny the request. View Decision B-297397.3, New England Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc.--Costs, February 2, 2006 Decision Matter of: New England Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc.--Costs File: B-297397.3 Date: February 2, 2006 John J. Field, Esq., Jacob B. Pankowski, Esq., and Stephen D. Zubiago, Esq., Nixon Peabody LLP, for the protester. Dennis Foley, Esq., Phillip Kaufman, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing multiple protests is not recommended where, even if the protester is correct that the agency took corrective action in response to the first protest filed, that protest was not clearly meritorious. DECISION New England Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. (NERT) requests that we recommend that the firm be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protests of the award of a contract to Radiation Oncology Associates (ROA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 00241-05-00289, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for radiation therapy services at the VA Medical Center in Providence, Rhode Island. We deny the request. The RFP provided for award of a 1-year, fixed-price requirements contract. RFP at 2. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best-value basis, considering price, past performance, qualifications of key personnel, geographic location, and capabilities. Price was stated to be approximately 50 percent of the evaluation, and all other factors, when combined, were stated to be approximately 50 percent of the evaluation. Id. at 28. With regard to price, the RFP requested that offerors submit unit prices for radiation treatments to be provided to VA patients in the following three categories: radiation treatments including radiation therapy; –3D— planning treatments; and –IMRT— (that is, intensity modulated radiation therapy) treatments for –prostate— patients and for –head and neck— patients. The RFP stated that –UNIT PRICE is defined as radiation treatment to the VA patient. Included in the UNIT PRICE are the initial consult, treatment plan and follow-up exams.— Based on these unit prices, the RFP requested total fixed prices for these efforts given the solicitation's stated estimated quantities of 2,200 radiation treatments, 65 –3D— planning treatments, and 30 IMRT treatments (20 –prostate— treatments and 10 –head and neck— treatments). RFP at 2. Prior to the date set for receipt of proposals, the agency sent to offerors a –clarification— of the services required. This clarification stated that –[t]reatments are based on approximately 100 patients referred per year,— and that –[p]rostate are included in the 100 patients— and –[h]ead and neck are included in the 100 patients.— Agency Motion to Dismiss, exh. 2, E-mails to Offerors (Aug. 31, 2005). Offerors were later advised that, of these 100 patients, 20 patients were prostate patients, and 10 patients were head and neck patients. Id., exh. 5, E-mail to Offeror (Sept. 19, 2005). Three offerors responded to the RFP. ROA's proposal was given the highest technical rating and had the lowest overall price of $805,500. NERT's proposal received the second highest technical rating, but had a higher overall price of $1,145,635. Agency Report at 2-3. Award was made to ROA and NERT protested. In its protest, NERT argued that ROA ignored the agency's –clarification— regarding patient treatments and provided for an insufficient number of IMRT treatments, basing its price on 30 IMRT –treatments— rather than 30 IMRT –patients,— thus offering a level of service that was different from, and far less than, that offered by NERT.