B-310230, Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc., December 12, 2007

B-310230 Dec 12, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Invacare Corp. under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-797-NC-06-RP-0001, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for provision of manual wheelchairs. Sunrise contends that the VA unreasonably evaluated offerors' technical and past performance proposals, and that the agency improperly refused to accept the protester's submission of a late proposal modification that lowered its price. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310230, Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc., December 12, 2007 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: Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc. File: B-310230 Date: December 12, 2007 Leigh T. Hansson, Esq., Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., and Steven D. Tibbets, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for the protester. Edward O. Patton, Esq., Mansour, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos Co., LPA, for Invacare Corp., an intervenor. Melbourne A. Noel, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is denied where the agency's evaluation of offerors' technical proposals and past performance were either reasonable or did not prejudice the protester. 2. Protest is denied where agency reasonably did not accept protester's late proposal submission because protester was not the –otherwise successful offeror.— DECISION Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Invacare Corp. under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-797-NC-06-RP-0001, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for provision of manual wheelchairs. Sunrise contends that the VA unreasonably evaluated offerors' technical and past performance proposals, and that the agency improperly refused to accept the protester's submission of a late proposal modification that lowered its price. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals to provide manual wheelchairs and accessories for the VA's Prosthetic Clinical Management Program. The RFP anticipated award of a contract with a 1-year base term, and four 1-year options. Offerors were advised that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was –most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.— RFP at 46. The RFP identified four factors for consideration in the award decision, which were listed in decreasing order of importance as follows: technical, price, quality/past performance, and small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation. Id.Within the technical factor, the following subfactors were identified: quality of materials/design and workmanship, wheelchair performance, portability, test results in compliance with wheelchair standards issued by the American National Standards Institute and Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistance Technology Society of North America (ANSI/RESNA), and warranty period. Id. at 46. The first two technical subfactors were of equal and greatest importance, with the remaining subfactors listed in decreasing order of importance. Id. The agency received five proposals by the August 17, 2006 due date, including, as relevant here, a proposal from Invacare for its –Patriot Plus— wheelchair model, and proposals from Sunrise for its –Sunrise Quickie 2— (Q2) and –Sunrise LXE— models. On December 29, 2006, the agency issued RFP amendment 7, requesting that offerors agree to extend their proposed prices through March 30, 2007. RFP amend. 7, at 1. Sunrise acknowledged the amendment, but stated that –not only will we hold the original price but we are also submitting reduced pricing.— Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Letter from Sunrise to the Contracting Officer (CO), Jan. 11, 2007, at 1. Sunrise stated that it believed that the agency could accept the revised proposal because a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause incorporated into the RFP permitted such submissions. Id.This clause, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items, states that –a late modification of an otherwise successful offer, that makes its terms more favorable to the Government, will be considered at any time it is received and may be accepted.— RFP at 37; FAR sect. 52.212-1(f)(2)(ii). The VA, however, did not consider Sunrise's proposal modification in its evaluation of offerors' proposals because it was submitted after the proposal due date and Sunrise was not considered by the agency to be the otherwise successful offeror. AR, Tab 9B, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 29; CO Statement at 5. As relevant to the protest, the VA evaluated the offerors' test data demonstrating their compliance with standards promulgated by ANSI/RESNA, a national testing standards organization.