Buffalo Hospital Supply Co., Inc.

B-412405 Feb 02, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Buffalo Hospital Supply Co., Inc. (BHS), of Buffalo, New York, protests the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to exclude its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA119-15-R-0025 for the maintenance and distribution of medical and surgical supplies. BHS alleges that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:  Buffalo Hospital Supply Co., Inc. File:  B-412405 Date:  February 2, 2016 James S. DelSordo, Esq., Argus Legal, PLLC, for the protester. Ashley D. Dennis Presley, Esq., Maura C. Brown, Esq., and Barbara J. Stuetzer, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester’s proposal is denied where record reflects evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation’s terms. DECISION Buffalo Hospital Supply Co., Inc. (BHS), of Buffalo, New York, protests the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to exclude its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA119-15-R-0025 for the maintenance and distribution of medical and surgical supplies.  BHS alleges that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on May 15, 2015, contemplated the award of multiple fixed‑price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to support the agency’s national medical/surgical prime vendor (MSPV) program.  RFP at 1, 25-26, 121.  Under this program, successful offerors would “maintain and distribute all required medical, surgical, dental, and laboratory . . . supplies and other contracted medical/surgical supplies used in a [VA] medical facility.”  Id. at 21.  To establish the contractors’ responsibilities under the program, the solicitation included a statement of work (SOW) that set forth numerous specific requirements.[1]  RFP at 21-50. The awards were to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and the following three factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical/ management; past performance; and socioeconomic.  RFP at 121‑22.  The solicitation included descriptions of how the agency would evaluate proposals under each factor.  Id. at 122-24.  Additionally, under the technical/management factor, the solicitation listed three standalone evaluation criteria--understanding the requirements, feasibility of approach, and completeness‑‑and described how the agency would evaluate proposals under these criteria.  Id. at 122. The agency received a number of proposals by the solicitation’s closing date, including a proposal from BHS.  A technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the proposals under the technical/management factor, and documented strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.  BHS’s proposal was assigned 9 strengths, 13 weaknesses, and 7 deficiencies.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Technical Evaluation Rep. (BHS), at 1-7.  The TET also assigned adjectival ratings under the technical/management factor.[2]  BHS’s proposal was assigned a rating of unacceptable.  Id. at 13.  The TET documented its evaluation with a detailed narrative to explain this rating.  Id. at 9-13.  Among other things, the TET highlighted its finding that BHS’s proposal did not address approximately 42 percent of the approximately 160 requirements in the SOW.  Id. at 11-13.  Ultimately, the TET concluded as follows: [BHS’s] proposal lacks detail on their approach to meeting all the requirements.  [BHS] does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements.  The [TET] identified major errors and omissions which creates a low level of confidence that BHS can carry out the contract with success.  As is, the error and omissions cannot be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal. Id.