B-298293; B-298293.2, Air Products Healthcare, August 11, 2006

B-298293; B-298293.2, Air Products Healthcare, August 11, 2006 TITLE: B-298293; B-298293.2, Air Products Healthcare, August 11, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298293; B-298293.2 DATE: August 11, 2006 ************************************************************** B-298293; B-298293.2, Air Products Healthcare, August 11, 2006 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: Air Products Healthcare File: B-298293; B-298293.2 Date: August 11, 2006 Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Robert J. Symon, Esq., and Katherine L. Ruff, Esq., Bradley Arant Rose & White, for the protester. Dennis Foley, Esq., and Philip Kaufman, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 Protest that agency improperly determined that protester's proposal was technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency's conclusion was reasonable, and where the agency clearly advised the protester of its concerns during discussions. DECISION American Homecare Supply, LLC, dba Air Products Healthcare protests the award of a contract to Rotech Healthcare Inc. by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 00241-05-00106, issued to procure home oxygen delivery and support services for veteran patients located in the VA's Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 1, which includes the New England states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Air Products argues that the VA unreasonably concluded that its proposal was technically unacceptable, failed to hold meaningful discussions, and conducted an unreasonable evaluation of past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP here, issued on August 10, 2005, advised potential offerors that the VA has an ongoing requirement for home oxygen services for approximately 5,220 veteran patients served by eight VA medical centers (VAMC) and associated outpatient clinics in the New England area. RFP at 27. In addition, the RFP provided a breakdown of the estimated number of home oxygen patients served by each of the major facilities within VISN 1. Specifically, the estimated number of patients for each location is as follows: VAMC Bedford, MA 104 VA Boston, MA Healthcare System (HCS) 1,257 VA Connecticut HCS 1,126 VAMC Manchester, NH 442 VAMC Northampton, MA 160 VAMC Providence, RI 570 VAMC Togus, ME 1,300 VAMC White River Junction, VT 261 Id. at 75 (Attach. B). In addition to the routine patient visits and replenishment of supplies associated with providing home oxygen services, the RFP required that offerors be able to provide emergency services at a beneficiary's home within 6 hours of a call for help, and advised that most emergency services should be provided within 2 hours of a call. Id. at 28. The RFP also identified a transition period of 45 days during which the incumbent contractor would continue to provide these services while the incoming contractor is taking over. Id. at 31. The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for these services for 1 base year, followed by up to four 1-year options. The solicitation advised that proposals would be assessed under each of three evaluation factors--technical capability, past performance, and price--and that technical capability and past performance combined would be "significantly more important than price." Id. at 64. The solicitation also advised that price would become more important as technical evaluations became more equal. Id. at 65. Under the technical capability evaluation factor, the solicitation also identified four subfactors, in descending order of importance. These were: technical approach, key management team, financial statement, and curriculum vitae for the project manager. Id. at 66. By the September 1, 2005, closing date, the VA received three proposals--one from Rotech, one from Air Products, and one from a third offeror. The VA evaluators rated each proposal under the technical evaluation factors and subfactors, and under the past performance evaluation factor, using the ratings of A, B, C, or D.