Red One Medical Devices, LLC (36C79119R0004)

B-419030,B-419030.3 Nov 16, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Red One Medical Devices, LLP, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Savannah, Georgia, protests the award of a contract to LMH Hawthorne Healthcare, Inc. d/b/a/ Pisces Healthcare (Pisces) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C79119R0004, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for orthotic soft goods and prosthetic supplies. Red One complains that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as unacceptable. 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:  Red One Medical Devices, LLC File:  B-419030; B-419030.3 Date:  November 16, 2020 Maria Panichelli, Esq., Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, for the protester. Jennifer Claypool, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Proposals that did not demonstrate compliance with the solicitation requirements were reasonably eliminated from consideration for award.  DECISION Red One Medical Devices, LLP, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Savannah, Georgia, protests the award of a contract to LMH Hawthorne Healthcare, Inc. d/b/a/ Pisces Healthcare (Pisces) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C79119R0004, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for orthotic soft goods and prosthetic supplies.  Red One complains that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on April 8, 2019, for orthotic soft goods and prosthetic supplies.  RFP at 7.  The solicitation contemplated the award of multiple fixed-priced, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 8.  The maximum order amount, to be shared among all awarded contracts, is $200 million.  RFP amend. 04 at 4.  The solicitation included 44 line items, each of which would be independently evaluated and awarded.  RFP at 8-9.  Offerors were permitted to submit a proposal for one or more line items.  Id. at 113.  As relevant here, line items 29, 30, and 31, which were set aside for SDVOSBs, were for compression stockings.  Id. at 8.  The solicitation included minimum technical requirements that each requested item was required to meet.  Id. at 67-98.  Offerors were required to submit documentation and/or descriptive literature to demonstrate that the items they were offering met the minimum technical requirements.  Id. at 107-109.  The solicitation advised offerors that the agency would first evaluate, on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, the documentation and descriptive literature submitted to determine that the offered item meets the minimum technical requirements.  Id. at 113.  Items that were evaluated as unacceptable would not be further considered.  Id.  If the proposed items were evaluated as acceptable, the proposal would be evaluated under the following factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  Id.  Contracts would be awarded for each line item to the responsible offeror that submitted the lowest price for the item.  Id.   The solicitation required that the compression stockings for line items 29, 30, and 31 have an ankle measurement range of 7 to 14 inches.  RFP amend. 8 at 6-7.  In response to these line items, Red One proposed to provide compression stockings with a minimum ankle circumference of 7 inches and a maximum circumference of 13.75 inches.  Red One Technical Proposal Volume 2 at 9-12.  The VA concluded that Red One’s proposed items did not meet the minimum technical requirements and eliminated Red One’s proposal following the preliminary evaluation.  Agency Reply, Sept. 16, 2020, Exh. 5, Phase One Product Evaluation.  After a debriefing, Red One filed this protest with our Office. DISCUSSION  Red One protests that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal for line items 29, 30, and 31.  First, Red One questions whether the agency actually rejected the items for failing to meet the ankle circumference requirement.  Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 3-6.  In this regard, Red One notes that during its debriefing it was told that its proposal for line items 29, 30, and 31 was rejected because it failed to meet a different minimum technical requirement--the length-to-knee requirement.[1]  Id. at 4.  Second, Red One complains that the evaluation documents show that two of four evaluators found that its proposed items did not meet the ankle circumference requirement, but that one evaluator found the item unacceptable for failing to meet size requirements, without specifying which requirement.  Protester’s Resp.