B&B Medical Services, Inc. (VA261-15-R-0442)

B-414471.7,B-414471.8,B-414471.9 Jul 24, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights B&B Medical Services, Inc., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the award of six related contracts to Apria Healthcare, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA261-15-R-0042, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for in-home oxygen and ventilator services. The protester argues that the solicitation did not properly reflect the agency's requirements, the agency failed to consider a corporate transaction relevant to its evaluation of the awardee's responsibility and technical capability, the awardee misrepresented the availability of key personnel, and the agency's best-value tradeoff decision was unreasonable. 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: B&B Medical Services, Inc. File: B-414471.7; B-414471.8; B-414471.9 Date: July 24, 2023 William M. Jack, Esq., and Ken M. Kanzawa, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, and Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for the protester. John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., and Issac D. Schabes, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Apria Healthcare, LLC, the intervenor. Daniel J. McFeely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that estimated quantities in a solicitation did not accurately reflect agency’s needs is denied where agency reasonably derived estimates from historical and current usage data and where protester has not demonstrated prejudice from any inaccuracies. 2. Protest that agency failed to consider effect of corporate transaction involving the stock purchase of an entity at least three corporate levels above awardee is denied where agency considered the transaction and reasonably determined that it did not affect awardee’s responsibility or the evaluation of awardee’s proposal. 3. Protest that awardee misrepresented the availability and qualifications of key personnel is denied where solicitation did not require identification of key personnel and the record reflects that the awardee’s identification of personnel had no effect on the agency’s evaluation. DECISION B&B Medical Services, Inc., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the award of six related contracts to Apria Healthcare, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA261‑15‑R‑0042, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for in‑home oxygen and ventilator services. The protester argues that the solicitation did not properly reflect the agency’s requirements, the agency failed to consider a corporate transaction relevant to its evaluation of the awardee’s responsibility and technical capability, the awardee misrepresented the availability of key personnel, and the agency’s best‑value tradeoff decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. Background On February 19, 2016, the agency issued the original version of the RFP, seeking in‑home oxygen and in‑home ventilator services for the VA’s Veteran Integrated Service Network (VISN) 21 region.[1] The agency amended the solicitation 22 times between its original issuance on February 19, 2016 and January 8, 2021.[2] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3; see Agency Report (AR), Exhs. 3 and 4, Amendments to the RFP. The final version of the RFP’s base text‑-including the instructions to offerors, evaluation factors for award, and performance work statement‑-was contained in amendment A00021. AR, Exh. 4, RFP at 576‑635.[3] The final version of attachment 1 to the RFP--an “item schedule” spreadsheet of relevance to this protest--was issued with amendment A00022. AR, Exh. 7, RFP attach. 1. The RFP explained that VISN 21 is divided into six geographic areas of responsibility, each under the jurisdiction of a different VA Medical Center: Central California, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Northern California, Pacific Islands, and Sierra Nevada. RFP at 609‑610. Offerors were free to propose for some or all of the geographic areas, and the agency intended to award a separate fixed-price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract for each geographic area. Id. at 610. The RFP anticipated that the awarded contracts would have a 1‑year base period and up to four 1‑year options periods. AR, Exh. 7, RFP attach. 1. The RFP established that the awards would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: experience, price, and service‑disabled veteran-owned small business/veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB/VOSB) status. Id. at 579. The non‑price factors, when combined, were more important than price.