Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc.

B-413774.3 Apr 07, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., of Norwood, Massachusetts, requests that we recommend it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing a bid protest challenging the issuance of two blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) to Beckman Coulter, Inc., of Brea, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA256-15-Q-1084, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for chemical testing services. Siemens argues that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to its clearly meritorious protest. We grant the request. We grant the request. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc.--Costs File:  B-413774.3 Date:  April 7, 2017 Robert S. Metzger, Esq., Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., and Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, PC, for the protester. Tracy Downing, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request by protester that Government Accountability Office recommend reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing its protest is granted where record shows that agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to a protest that clearly was meritorious. DECISION Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., of Norwood, Massachusetts, requests that we recommend it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing a bid protest challenging the issuance of two blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) to Beckman Coulter, Inc., of Brea, California, under request for   quotations (RFQ) No. VA256-15-Q-1084, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for chemical testing services.  Siemens argues that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to its clearly meritorious protest. We grant the request. After being advised of the agency’s issuance of the BPAs to Beckman Coulter, Siemens filed a protest in our Office alleging that the agency had misevaluated proposals, engaged in misleading and unequal discussions and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  Our Office docketed the protest and sent out routine development letters that established October 24, 2016, as the date for submission of the agency report.  On October 19, counsel for the agency requested an extension of the deadline for submitting the agency report from October 24, to October 28.  In response to that request, our Office established a deadline of October 26.[1] On October 26, the agency submitted a legal memorandum and a copy of the RFQ, but did not provide any exhibits to its report, advising instead that it would submit them separately on compact disc sent via overnight mail.  On October 28, agency counsel advised that he would not be able to provide the exhibits by that means, and instead advised that the exhibits would be provided using a secure file transfer system.  The agency report exhibits were filed on October 28, but they were not logically arranged or presented in an intelligible manner.  In light of the circumstances, the GAO attorney responsible for the case advised agency counsel that he should submit a new version of the agency report that was logically arranged and understandable by November 1. On October 31, the agency submitted some--but not all--of the agency report exhibits.  On November 1, the agency filed the remaining exhibits.  On November 2, counsel for the protester requested additional documents, which were provided by the agency on November 3.[2] On November 7, the protester filed a supplemental protest raising additional allegations concerning the propriety of the agency’s evaluation of quotations and making additional allegations concerning the adequacy of the agency’s discussions with the protester.[3]  Our Office established a deadline of November 18 for submission of an agency report responding to the supplemental protest.  On November 16, counsel for the agency requested an extension for submission of the agency’s supplemental report until November 28.  We denied the agency’s request for an extension and requested that the agency provide its supplemental report by November 18.  On November 18, the agency advised our Office and the parties that it would be taking corrective action in connection with the protest.  In its corrective action notice, the agency argued at some length that Siemens should not be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest because, according to the agency, its corrective action was taken promptly in response to the supplemental protest.  In advancing that argument, the agency did not identify which of the supplemental protest allegations it viewed as meritorious. In response to the agency’s notice, the protester filed an objection to the agency’s request for dismissal of the protest.  Among other thing...