Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. (36C24219R0090)

B-419910.3 Jan 10, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sterling Medical Associates, Inc., of Cincinnati, Ohio, requests that our Office recommend the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reimburse Sterling's costs of filing and pursuing its protest against the award of a contract to STG International, Inc. (STGi) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24219R0090, for a community based outpatient clinic (CBOC) in Watertown, New York, which is located in the agency's Veteran Integrated Service Network 2 (VISN 2) region. We deny the request. 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-419910.3 Date:  January 10, 2022 Barbara Duncombe, Esq., and Erin Davis, Esq.,Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, for the protester. Steven Devine, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST GAO does not recommend reimbursement of protest costs where, based on the circumstances of the case, we conclude that although the agency delayed taking corrective action, the protest was not clearly meritorious. DECISION Sterling Medical Associates, Inc., of Cincinnati, Ohio, requests that our Office recommend the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reimburse Sterling’s costs of filing and pursuing its protest against the award of a contract to STG International, Inc. (STGi) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24219R0090, for a community based outpatient clinic (CBOC) in Watertown, New York, which is located in the agency’s Veteran Integrated Service Network 2 (VISN 2) region.  We deny the request. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on January 13, 2021, provided that the contract would be awarded on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors:  (1) technical capability (with subfactors for quality; management, experience, and staffing; transition, start-up plan; and geographic location), (2) past performance, (3) service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) or veteran-owned small business (VOSB) status, and (4) cost/price.  Agency Report (AR), B-419910.1, B-419910.2, Exh. 3, RFP at 140-144.  The factors were listed in descending order of importance.  The technical capability subfactors were equal in importance. Three offerors, including Sterling and STGi, each submitted two proposals, designated here as option A and option B.[1]  Sterling and STGi submitted proposals for two locations.  The third offeror submitted two proposals for the same location, each with a different staffing model.  The technical proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) which assigned an adjectival rating based on evaluated strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, and a confidence rating based on past performance.  Following the evaluation of initial proposals, discussions, and the submission and evaluation of final proposal revisions, the offerors were rated and ranked as follows:[2]   Sterling STGi Offeror 3 Technical Capability Overall Satisfactory Good Good   Quality Satisfactory Excellent Good   Management/   Experience/    Staffing  Good Good Good   Transition Satisfactory Good Good   Geographic     Location Good Good Good Past Performance Confidence High Confidence Confidence SDVOSB/VOSB Status Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Price Option A $36,958,278 Option B $40,830,471 Option A $39,532,800 Option B $39,532,800 Option A $39,946,419 Option B $40,265,868 Technical Rank (out of 6 proposals) Option A-6th Option B-5th Option A-2nd Option B-1st Option A-3rd Option B-4th   AR, Exh. 19, SSEB Consensus Report, at 1; AR, Exh. 20, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 27.[3] Based on the SSEB’s evaluation, as well as the Source Selection Authority’s (SSA’s) own price-technical tradeoff analysis, the SSA concluded that STGi’s option B proposal presented the best overall value under the terms of the RFP.  SSDD at 23-26.  The contract was awarded to STGi on June 3.  AR, Exh.