Logistics Health, Inc. (W15QKN-18-R-1000)

B-416145.7 Mar 02, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights This letter is in response to your request for an advisory opinion with regard to the above-captioned bid protest case currently before the Court. Specifically, the Court requested our Office's views on an earlier bid protest filed, and subsequently withdrawn, by Logistics Health, Inc. (LHI) with our Office. The views discussed below are based on the records presented to our Office in connection with LHI's earlier protest before our Office. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The letter issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. B-416145.7 March 2, 2021 The Honorable Ryan T. Holte Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims   Re:  Logistics Health, Inc. v. U.S., Case No. 21-759C Dear Judge Holte: This letter is in response to your request for an advisory opinion with regard to the above-captioned bid protest case currently before the Court.  Specifically, the Court requested our Office’s views on an earlier bid protest filed, and subsequently withdrawn, by Logistics Health, Inc. (LHI) with our Office.  The views discussed below are based on the records presented to our Office in connection with LHI’s earlier protest before our Office.  LHI, of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, protested the award of a contract to QTC Medical Services, Inc., of San Dimas, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-18-R-1000, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for contractor operation of the Defense Health Agency’s Reserve Health Readiness Program (RHRP).  The protester challenged multiple aspects of the agency’s technical, past performance and price evaluations; argued that the agency engaged in unequal discussions; and contended that the agency made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff source selection decision. Based on our review, we would not have objected to the agency’s conduct of discussions because they were not unequal in nature.  We also would not have objected to the agency’s evaluation of proposals or its source selection as they complied with the solicitation, were reasonable, and adequately documented. BACKGROUND On November 22, 2017, the agency issued the solicitation as a commercial item acquisition, utilizing the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, seeking proposals for contractor operation of the RHRP.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, RFP at 1.  The RHRP provides health readiness services to Department of Defense (DOD) active duty military, reserve military, and civilian personnel to ensure they are medically ready to be mobilized to meet the military’s various mission needs.  AR, Tab 3, Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1.  The types of medical services provided through the RHRP include, among other things, immunizations, physical examinations, pre-deployment health assessments, post-deployment health reassessments, mental health assessments, dental examinations and treatments, laboratory services, occupational health services, periodic health assessments, and separation history and physical examinations.  AR, Tab 70, RFP amend. 6, attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.  The contract operator of the RHRP will be required to provide medical services to DOD personnel throughout the United States, its territories, the District of Columbia, and in Germany.  Id.; RFP at 4. The solicitation sought to establish a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, under which the agency would issue task orders with both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement elements.  RFP at 4-5.  The solicitation provided that the potential 5-year term of the contract would have a guaranteed minimum value of $9 million and a maximum possible value of $999 million.  Id. at 4. The solicitation provided that the agency would make award using a best-value tradeoff methodology, considering price and three non-price evaluation factors.  RFP at 5.  The solicitation further provided that the three non-price evaluation factors combined were significantly more important than price, and listed the evaluation factors in the following order of individual importance:  (1) technical; (2) past performance; (3) price; and (4) small business participation.  AR, Tab 73, RFP amend. 6, attach.