Total Home Health

B-417283,B-417283.2 Apr 26, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Total Home Health (THH), of Elgin, Illinois, challenges the award of a contract to Rotech Healthcare, Inc., of Orlando, Florida, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C25218R1040, for medical services and equipment. The protester argues that the agency misled it during discussions, and unreasonably concluded that the awardee was a responsible offeror. We sustain in part and deny in part the protest. We sustain in part and deny in part 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:  Total Home Health File:  B-417283; B-417283.2 Date:  April 26, 2019 Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., and Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., Venable, LLP, for the protester. David F. Dowd, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for Rotech Healthcare Inc., the intervenor. Brian R. Reed, Esq., and Donald C. Mobly, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s conduct of discussions is sustained where the agency advised the protester that it was concerned with three areas of the protester’s price in a manner that misled the protester into believing a revision in only those three areas would increase its chances for award. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s affirmative determination of responsibility for the awardee is denied where the record shows that the contracting officer considered the information cited by the protester concerning the awardee. DECISION Total Home Health (THH), of Elgin, Illinois, challenges the award of a contract to Rotech Healthcare, Inc., of Orlando, Florida, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C25218R1040, for medical services and equipment.  The protester argues that the agency misled it during discussions, and unreasonably concluded that the awardee was a responsible offeror. We sustain in part and deny in part the protest. BACKGROUND The VA issued the solicitation on October 23, 2018, seeking proposals to provide home respiratory services and durable medical equipment for Veterans Integrated Service Network 12, which encompasses “most of Illinois and Wisconsin, and the upper peninsula of Michigan.”  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1.  The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract with a base period of 1 year and four 1-year options.  Agency Report (AR), Attach. 6, RFP at 8-18, 132.  The RFP advised that award was to be made to the offeror that submitted the lowest- priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal.  Id. at 134.  The solicitation stated that technical acceptability would be evaluated based on whether a proposal “take[s] exception to any of the requirements of this procurement specified in the solicitation.”  Id.  The RFP required offers to submit prices for 14 contract line item numbers (CLINs), which included equipment rental and delivery, supplies, and respiratory therapist visits.  Id. at 8-18.  In addition, the solicitation identified two “special standards of responsibility,” which were to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis:  (1) experience in similar contracts, and (2) licenses and credentials for offerors’ proposed therapists.  Id. at 130. The VA received proposals from six offerors, including THH and Rotech, by the closing date of November 30, 2018.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  THH’s initial price was $34,779,590, which was the fourth-lowest price.  MOL at 4.  Rotech’s initial price was $24,446,100, which was the lowest price.  Id.  The agency found that all proposals were technically acceptable, in that none took exception to the solicitation requirements.  COS at 1.  The agency found, however, that three of the six proposals failed to meet the special standards of responsibility, and two of the prices were not fair and reasonable.  Id. at 1-2.  The agency therefore conducted discussions with offerors “to increase competition and to get the best price.”  Id. at 2.   On December 6, the VA advised THH that its proposal met the solicitation’s technical acceptability and special responsibility criteria, and that “[t]he Contracting Officer is giving all firms until Monday December 10th at 5:00 pm central time to submit final proposal revision(s) if your firm chooses to do so.”  Protest, Exh. 7b, Email from VA to THH, Dec. 6, 2018.  This exchange did not provide information to the protester about its price or the prices of other offerors.  See id.  The protester submitted a revised proposal on December 10, which lowered its price to $34,414,404.  Id., Email from THH to VA, Dec.