Draeger, Inc.

B-418089.2,B-418089.3 Dec 10, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Draeger, Inc., of Telford, Pennsylvania, protests the corrective action taken by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in response to Draeger's earlier protest challenging the award of a contract to another vendor under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25919Q0613 for anesthesia integrated workstations. The protester contends that the agency's corrective action--specifically, its decision to cancel the RFQ and reassess its requirements--lacks a reasonable basis and is pretextual. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Draeger, Inc. File:  B-418089.2; B-418089.3 Date:  December 10, 2020 Hilary S. Cairnie, Esq., and Martha Guarnieri, Esq., Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, for the protester. Jared M. Levin, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency’s decision to cancel solicitation as part of corrective action taken in response to an earlier protest is denied where the agency demonstrates a reasonable basis for its decision to cancel and reassess its requirements. DECISION Draeger, Inc., of Telford, Pennsylvania, protests the corrective action taken by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in response to Draeger’s earlier protest challenging the award of a contract to another vendor under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25919Q0613 for anesthesia integrated workstations.  The protester contends that the agency’s corrective action--specifically, its decision to cancel the RFQ and reassess its requirements--lacks a reasonable basis and is pretextual. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on September 11, 2019 and amended twice, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for six anesthesia integrated workstations for the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Grand Junction, Colorado.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ Inclusive of All Amendments (RFQ), at 12.  Each workstation would include an anesthesia delivery system and an anesthesia monitoring system; the contractor would also be responsible for maintenance, warranty, and training.  Id. The RFQ was apparently issued on a brand-name-or-equal basis--although it did not list a brand name product.  Instead, the solicitation advised vendors quoting “‘or equal’ product(s)” to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.211-6, Brand Name or Equal,[1] and required the quoted product to meet 40 salient characteristics described in the RFQ in order to be found technically acceptable.  Id. at 12‑15; id. at 17-18.  The RFQ contemplated the use of FAR part 13 simplified acquisition procedures and provided for award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.  Id. at 16. On or before September 24, 2019, the amended closing date for quotations, the agency received quotations from five vendors, including Draeger and Trillamed, LLC.  Contracting Officer’s Statement, Oct. 14, 2020, at 2.  The agency selected Trillamed for award, and Draeger filed its first protest with our Office on October 3, 2019, arguing primarily that Trillamed’s product did not meet a number of the salient characteristics required by the RFQ.  The agency proposed to take corrective action, to include reevaluating quotations and making a new award decision, and we dismissed the protest as academic.  Draeger, Inc., B-418089, Oct. 22, 2019 (unpublished decision). After the agency completed its reevaluation, the agency again awarded a contract to Trillamed,[2] and Draeger filed another protest with our Office on August 6, 2020.  Prior to the due date for filing its agency report, the agency filed a letter notifying our Office of its intent to again take corrective action.  In our decision dismissing the protest as academic, we noted the following: In the letter, the agency states that after review of the record, Trillamed’s quotation “does not clearly address how its product meets all of the [s]olicitation’s salient characteristics.”  The agency also states that these salient characteristics may not properly reflect the agency’s requirements.  The agency concludes that it will therefore terminate the award, cancel the solicitation, reevaluate the agency’s requirements, and resolicit the procurement. Draeger, Inc., B-418985, B-418985.2, Sept. 21, 2020 (unpublished decision) (internal citations omitted), citing Notice of Corrective Action and Request for Dismissal, B‑418985, B‑418985.2, Sept.