iMed Biomedical, Inc.

B-416195 Jul 03, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights iMed Biomedical, Inc., of Carrollton, Texas, protests the award of a sole-source contract to NovaMed Corporation, of Trumbull, Connecticut, under solicitation No. 36C25618R0378, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for maintenance of Bayer MEDRAD injectors for the Houston, Texas VA Medical Center. iMed asserts that the agency's decision to award a sole-source contract lacks a rational basis because more than one viable source was available to fulfill the requirement. 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:  iMed Biomedical, Inc. File:  B-416195 Date:  July 3,2018 Kathy Van Every, Esq., Law Offices of Kathy Van Every, for the protester. Deborah K. Morrell, Esq., and Donald C. Mobly, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency has not properly justified a proposed sole-source award is denied where the agency executed a justification and approval (J&A) and the protester does not demonstrate that the agency’s rationale for the J&A was unreasonable. DECISION iMed Biomedical, Inc., of Carrollton, Texas, protests the award of a sole-source contract to NovaMed Corporation, of Trumbull, Connecticut, under solicitation No. 36C25618R0378, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for maintenance of Bayer MEDRAD injectors for the Houston, Texas VA Medical Center. iMed asserts that the agency’s decision to award a sole-source contract lacks a rational basis because more than one viable source was available to fulfill the requirement. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued a sources sought notice seeking potential offerors to provide all labor, tools, materials, parts, equipment, supervision, software, license, certification, transportation, management, and personnel required for preventive maintenance on government MEDRAD equipment. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Sources Sought Notice; Tab 4, Statement of Work, at 1. As relevant to this protest, the sources sought notice required that the contractor “be an authorize[d] vendor, trained technician, possess licenses and certification for proprietary equipment and services to meet all government requirements and objectives.” Id. at 2. The sources sought notice further required the vendor to “be an [original equipment manufacturer (OEM)], authorized dealer, authorized distributor or authorized reseller” for the equipment to be maintained, “verified by an authorization letter or other documents from the OEM.” Id. In addition to publication of the notice, the contracting officer performed a search of the VA’s vendor information page portal and emailed directly at least three firms that were either service- disabled veteran-owned or serviced-disabled small businesses. AR, Tab 5, Justification and Approval (J&A), at 3. Four firms, including the protester and the awardee, responded to the sources sought notice. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. iMed communicated that “[d]ue to the competitive nature of the medical device service industry, it is very difficult for small/veteran owned businesses to receive OEM ‘authorizations’ that directly compete with OEM provisions.” Protest, attach. D, iMed Response to Sources Sought Notice. The protester also advised the agency that iMed understood “that your medical staff wish[es] to have full confidence in the service personnel that [are] responsible for the equipment they use each day. iMed is able to provide OEM equivalent quality of service at a more affordable cost.” Id. Because iMed’s response did not advise the agency that iMed had either OEM certified technicians or a contractual relationshipwith the OEM, Bayer, the agency concluded that iMed’s response “places the risk on the government versus the contractor.” AR, Tab 5, J&A, at4. Only one firm, NovaMed, produced a letter stating that it had a master service agreement with Bayer. See id. Such an agreement, the agency concluded, would decrease the risk to the government. Id. at 5. The agency’s J&A documented the market research that had been conducted, as well as the conclusion that only NovaMed could meet the requirements set forth in the sources sought notice. See generally id. Because NovaMed was the only firm that provided evidence that it could meet all of the requirements of the notice, the contracting officer issued a sole-source award to NovaMed “as allowed by simplified acquisition procedures” in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 13.5. COS at 2; see also AR, Tab 5, J&A, at 2 (sole-source award issued pursuant to FAR subpart 13.5).