Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. (36C24920R0010)

B-419794 Jun 25, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sterling Medical Associates, Inc., located in Cincinnati, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Valor Healthcare, Inc., of Dallas, Texas, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24920R0010, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for community based outpatient clinic (CBOC) services at two locations in Tennessee. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. We dismiss the protest. We dismiss 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:  Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. File:  B-419794 Date:  June 25, 2021 Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Erin R. Davis, Esq., Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq., and Sean A. Graves, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, for the protester. Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., Erica L. Bakies, Esq., Melody A. Alemansour, Esq., and Sarah F. Burgart, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, for Valor Healthcare, Inc., the intervenor. Deborah K. Morrell, Esq., and Kathleen Ellis, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Post-award protest challenging alleged solicitation ambiguity is dismissed as untimely where any ambiguity in the solicitation language was patent. DECISION Sterling Medical Associates, Inc., located in Cincinnati, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Valor Healthcare, Inc., of Dallas, Texas, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24920R0010, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for community based outpatient clinic (CBOC) services at two locations in Tennessee.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND On June 2, 2020, the agency issued the solicitation seeking primary medical and mental health care services through primary care CBOCs located within Maury County, Tennessee and McMinnville, Tennessee.[1]  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 1-year base period and six  1-year options. The solicitation required the contractor to conform to the standards established by The Joint Commission (TJC), and to submit proof of conformance to those standards.[2]  Protest, exh. A, RFP at 15, 128.  The RFP further provided that “facility Joint Commission or equivalent accreditation must be maintained throughout the contract period of performance.”  Id. at 33.  The contractor qualifications section of the performance work statement (PWS) required the contractor to meet “all applicable standards in the most current version of The Joint Commission Accreditation Manual for Hospitals regarding the operation of this type of service” and to “comply with all applicable facility requirements and standards as set forth herein.”  Id. at 40.  The PWS further provided that the “[c]ontractor shall be accredited by TJC and maintain a level of service that is in compliance with all current TJC standards”; also, if TJC accredited, the contractor “will be required to furnish a copy of the accreditation letter(s) upon request by the Contracting Officer prior to award.”  Id. at 98.  The PWS also stated that the “[c]ontractor shall be TJC [a]ccredited and responsible for meeting or exceeding VA and TJC (or equivalent) standards.”  Id. at 44.  The solicitation provided for the evaluation of price and the following factors, in descending order of importance:  technical capabilities, business operations, small business participation, and past performance.  Id. at 152-158.  The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 152.  Subfactors under the technical capabilities factor were experience, suitability and accessibility of facility, management plans/quality control, coordination and continuity of care, and key personnel.  Id.