Medfinity LLC

B-412068 Dec 02, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Medfinity, LLC (Medfinity), of Fountain Valley, California, a small business, protests the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) sole source award of a contract to PROAIM Americas, LLC (PROAIM), of Grover, Missouri, a small business, for a Zeiss Humphrey visual field analyzer for the VA Medical Center in Spokane, Washington. Medfinity argues that the sole source award to PROAIM was improper because there are other visual field analyzers that the VA could have purchased to meet its needs. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Medfinity, LLC File:  B-412068 Date:  December 2, 2015 Peter Pham, for the protester. David G. Fagan, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Laura Eyester, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that sole source award was improper is denied where the procurement was conducted under simplified acquisition procedures and the record shows that the contracting officer reasonably determined that only one source was reasonably available.  DECISION Medfinity, LLC (Medfinity), of Fountain Valley, California, a small business, protests the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) sole source award of a contract to PROAIM Americas, LLC (PROAIM), of Grover, Missouri, a small business, for a Zeiss Humphrey visual field analyzer for the VA Medical Center in Spokane, Washington.  Medfinity argues that the sole source award to PROAIM was improper because there are other visual field analyzers that the VA could have purchased to meet its needs.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 17, 2015, the VA posted its justification on the FedBizOpps website for a sole source award (in the amount of $28,170) to PROAIM for a Zeiss Humphrey Field Analyzer 3, Model 860, to replace existing broken equipment at the VA Medical Center in Spokane, Washington.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, FedBizOpps Synopsis of Award, Aug. 17, 2015.  A visual field analyzer determines a patient’s complete “visual field,” which includes peripheral vision.  AR at 1.  The VA’s Spokane facility tests patients using a visual field analyzer prior to the patient’s visit with an optometrist.  Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1.  During the examination, the optometrist compares the patient’s current results with the baseline and data from any other prior visual field tests.  Id. The notice indicated that the award was made as a simplified acquisition under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 13.106-1 on the basis of unusual and compelling urgency, FAR § 6.302-2, explaining that the VA facility was unable to provide optical service until its visual field analyzer was replaced.  AR, Tab 6, Synopsis of Award.  The notice further indicated that only PROAIM could provide the required supplies, explaining that the Zeiss Humphrey Field Analyzer 3, Model 860, is a “sole source item” distributed by PROAIM.[1]  Id.  Finally, the notice stated that there were “substantial savings” available from trading in used equipment.  Id. On August 18, Medfinity filed an agency-level protest challenging the sole source award.   AR, Tab 7, Email Correspondence, at 3.  After the VA denied its agency-level protest, AR, Tab 8, Agency-Level Protest Denial, Medfinity filed this protest with our Office.  DISCUSSION Medfinity argues that the agency’s decision not to consider it for award of the contract for the visual field analyzer was unreasonable because, according to the protester, it can provide a visual field analyzer that is equal to, or better than, the one purchased by the VA.  Protest at 1.  When conducting a procurement utilizing simplified acquisition procedures, contracting officers must promote competition to the maximum extent practicable to obtain supplies and services from the source whose offer is the most advantageous to the government.  41 U.S.C. § 3305(d); FAR § 13.104; SageCare, Inc., B-411260, June 23, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 190 at 3.  As an exception to this general competition requirement, a contracting officer may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action indicate that only one source was reasonably available, such as under urgent circumstances.  FAR § 13.106-1(b)(1)(i).