Integrated Medical Solutions, LLC (15B31719R00000001)

B-418754,B-418754.2 Aug 20, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Integrated Medical Solutions, LLC (IMS), of Mansfield, Texas, protests the award of a contract to NaphCare, Inc., of Birmingham, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15B31719R00000001, issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for comprehensive medical services for the federal correctional institution at Bennettsville, South Carolina (FCI Bennettsville). IMS argues that the agency conducted misleading and unequal discussions. IMS also argues that the agency failed to evaluate proposals pursuant to the solicitation criteria and that the award decision was unreasonable. 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:  Integrated Medical Solutions, LLC File:  B-418754; B-418754.2 Date:  August 20, 2020 Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Thomas K. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for the protester. Jason A. Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Andrew Guy, Esq., and Michael W. Pierce, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for NaphCare, Inc., the intervenor. Thomas Sutton, Esq., and Oleta Vassilopoulos, Esq., Department of Justice, 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 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s conduct of discussions is denied where the discussions were meaningful and equal, tailored to each offeror’s proposal, and led offerors into the general areas of their proposals requiring amplification or revision. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of technical proposals and source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Integrated Medical Solutions, LLC (IMS), of Mansfield, Texas, protests the award of a contract to NaphCare, Inc., of Birmingham, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15B31719R00000001, issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for comprehensive medical services for the federal correctional institution at Bennettsville, South Carolina (FCI Bennettsville).  IMS argues that the agency conducted misleading and unequal discussions.  IMS also argues that the agency failed to evaluate proposals pursuant to the solicitation criteria and that the award decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The BOP manages a nationwide system of prisons and detention facilities and provides for the custody and care of approximately 185,000 inmates, which includes furnishing essential medical, dental, and mental health services.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 47.[1]  When a medical need arises that the BOP cannot address through its own resources or within a prison’s walls, the BOP makes referrals to community‑based providers.  Id. The RFP was issued on an unrestricted basis on March 6, 2019, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15 procedures.[2]  See AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 1 at 5, 25; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 11.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, requirements contract under which fixed‑price task orders would be placed during a 1‑year base period with four 1‑year options.  AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 1 at 17; AR, Tab 5, RFP at 58-59.  Contract award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors:  technical criteria, past performance, and price.  AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 1 at 46.  Together, the non-price factors, technical and past performance, were equal to price; however, the solicitation advised that if proposals were considered approximately equal under the non-price factors, “price could be paramount in the selection decision.”  Id.  Price proposals would be evaluated based on the discount from, or premium added to, the Medicare rate for each price category.  The agency also assigned a price score based on a comparison of each proposal’s discount/premium proposed for each category to the most favorable discount/premium proposed for that category.  COS at 5-6; AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 1 at 47; AR, Tab 19, RFP amend. 2 at 3. The technical factor was comprised of the following subfactors of equal importance, which would be assigned adjectival ratings.[3]  AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 1 at 47. 1.    Level of diversity of services proposed; 2.   Accreditation status of the proposed contract facility(ies); 3.   Enhancements to the basic contract requirements proposed by the offeror which will facilitate FCI Bennettsville’s ability to conform to the BOP’s stated mission; and 4.