Medfinity LLC

B-413450 Sep 09, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Medfinity LLC, a small business located in Fountain Valley, California, protests the decision by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to cancel request for quotations (RFQ) No. IHSWRSUOptometry for optometry equipment and installation services at Whiteriver Hospital campus in Whiteriver, Arizona. Medfinity alleges that the agency's rationale for cancellation was a pretext. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Medfinity LLC File:  B-413450 Date:  September 9, 2016 Peter Pham for the protester. Douglas Kornreich, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency’s cancellation of a brand-name-or-equal solicitation was reasonable and was not made on the basis of pretext where the salient characteristics included in the solicitation did not adequately reflect the agency’s needs. DECISION Medfinity LLC, a small business located in Fountain Valley, California, protests the decision by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to cancel request for quotations (RFQ)[1] No. IHSWRSUOptometry for optometry equipment and installation services at Whiteriver Hospital campus in Whiteriver, Arizona.  Medfinity alleges that the agency’s rationale for cancellation was a pretext. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, which was issued on March 3, 2016, sought four optometry equipment items, and installation services, for the Whiteriver Hospital campus.  The RFQ provided for award to be made on a lowest-price, technically-acceptable basis.  RFQ Synopsis at 2.  For the equipment, the RFQ specified a particular brand and model of equipment (in each case, a ZEISS brand name) and indicated that the procurement was being conducted on a brand-name-or-equal basis.  For three of the four pieces of equipment, the solicitation did not include any information beyond the brand and model of the ZEISS equipment.  For the fourth item, a ZEISS Cirrus high-definition optical coherence tomography (OCT) Model 5000, the RFQ provided a one-page listing of characteristics of the machine. On March 28, Medfinity timely provided a quotation in response to the RFQ.  Medfinity’s quotation did not propose ZEISS-brand equipment, and instead proposed different brands of equipment, which Medfinity asserted were equivalent or better than the specified ZEISS equipment.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Medfinity Quotation.  On April 27, HHS issued an award to Medfinity.  Contracting Officer Statement at 1.  On May 2, a disappointed vendor, PROAIM Americas, LLC, filed an agency-level protest with HHS.  AR, Tab 13, PROAIM Protest.  In its protest, PROAIM asserted that Medfinity’s proposed OCT equipment failed to meet at least nine of the salient characteristics listed in the RFQ and therefore should have been determined technically unacceptable.  Id. at 2.  On May 11, the contracting officer (CO) sustained PROAIM’s protest, determining that the issues raised were valid.  AR, Tab 18, Agency Protest Decision Letter at 3.[2]  In setting forth HHS’s planned corrective action, the agency stated: The contract will be resolicited (if it is still required).  The technical team will need to revisit their criteria to determine the exact salient characteristics they need.  At that time, the solicitation will have clear standards that need to be met and the technical team will understand their responsibilities during the selection process. Id.  That same day, the contract specialist emailed Medfinity’s manager, and relayed the CO’s rationale for sustaining PROAIM’s protest.  AR, Tab 17, Medfinity Email Chain, at 5-7.  The contract specialist’s email also stated that because the protest had been sustained, the agency would be terminating Medfinity’s contract for convenience.  Id. at 5. On May 13, Medfinity sent an email to the CO challenging the assertions underlying HHS’s decision to sustain PROAIM’s protest, and requesting an independent third party review, which Medfinity contended would show that its products met or exceeded the solicitation requirements.  Id. at 2-5.[3]  On July 18, Medfinity’s manager emailed the contract specialist to inquire whether PROAIM’s protest had been “resolved so we can ship the equipment?”  AR, Tab 17, Medfinity Email Chain, at 2.  The contract specialist replied that same day, stating that: We have decided to cancel all solicitations and the units are redefining their requirements.  We will be using ECAT[[4]] until final decision(s) is/are made in the requirement/sources end-user needs. Id.