Concordance Healthcare Solutions, LLC (36C10G19R0050)

B-418223.3 Oct 07, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Academy Medical, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of West Palm Beach, Florida, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10G19R0050, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for the distribution and supply management of medical, surgical, dental, and laboratory supplies to VA medical centers (VAMCs) and other governmental agencies (OGAs). The protester argues that the agency's pricing methodology was unreasonable and that the agency improperly eliminated the protester from the competitive range. 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:  Academy Medical, LLC File:  B-418223.3 Date:  October 7, 2020 Julie M. Nichols, Esq., Roeder, Cochran, Phillips, PLLC, for the protester. Jason A. M. Fragoso, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly excluded protester from the competitive range is denied where record shows that price evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION Academy Medical, LLC, a service‑disabled veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB), of West Palm Beach, Florida, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10G19R0050, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for the distribution and supply management of medical, surgical, dental, and laboratory supplies to VA medical centers (VAMCs) and other governmental agencies (OGAs).  The protester argues that the agency’s pricing methodology was unreasonable and that the agency improperly eliminated the protester from the competitive range.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 27, 2019, the VA issued the solicitation, on an unrestricted basis, under the procedures of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP & amends. at 1, 137.[1]  The solicitation sought proposals to support the Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor (MSPV) 2.0 program by providing distribution and supply management services for all required medical, surgical, dental, and laboratory supplies in the Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISNs).[2]  Id. at 177.  The solicitation advised that one fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract would be awarded to a prime vendor (PV) and alternate PV for each VISN for a 3-year base period with two 3‑year option periods.  Id. at 86, 130, 139.  Each VISN is an individual contract line item number (CLIN).  The due date for proposals was October 28.  Id. at 1.  On October 25, Academy Medical filed a pre-award protest with our Office challenging the solicitation’s terms and arguing the VA unreasonably failed to set aside any VISN for SDVOSBs or veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs).  Academy Medical, LLC, B‑418223, B‑418223.2, Jan. 31, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 44.  We sustained the protest and, based on our recommendations, the VA amended the solicitation to set aside the CLINs associated with VISNs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, and 22 for small business concerns.  RFP & amends. at 76, 78.  All other VISNs will be awarded pursuant to an unrestricted competition.  Id. at 78.  The solicitation closed on March 6, 2020.  Id. at 76.  Under the tiered evaluation for the set‑aside CLIN/VISNs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, and 22, proposals are to be evaluated in the following order of priority:  (1) SDVOSBs, (2) VOSBs, (3) all other small business concerns, and (4) other than small businesses.  Id. at 123‑24.  If a sufficient number of awards cannot be made at the first tier, proposals at the next lower tier will be evaluated until a sufficient number of awards can be made.  Id. at 123.  The RFP provides for contract award on a best-value tradeoff basis, with the best value for each VISN determined independently.  Id. at 124.  Proposals are to be evaluated considering the following four factors:  technical approach, price, past performance, and veterans’ involvement.  Id. at 136.  The technical approach factor is significantly more important than price, which is slightly more important than past performance, which is slightly more important than the veterans’ involvement factor.  Id. at 136‑37.  When combined, all non-price evaluation factors are significantly more important than price.  Id. at 137. The solicitation provides that the VA will evaluate price proposals to determine whether the proposed fixed prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).  Id.