North American United Healthcare Services JV, LLC (HT001523R0003)

B-421623.5 Jan 25, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Maxmed Healthcare, Inc., a small business of San Antonio, Texas, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. HT001523R0003, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency (DHA) for medical professional staffing services. Maxmed contends that the solicitation provides for competition without the evaluation of price, and improperly allows for the past performance evaluation of only one partner in a joint venture. 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: Maxmed Healthcare, Inc. File: B-421623.5 Date: January 25, 2024 Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., and Greg P. Weber, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff, LLC, for the protester. Colby L. Sullins, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging use of “highest technically rated offerors with a fair and reasonable price” source selection method, for failing to properly consider price, is denied where the protester fails to establish that such an approach is prohibited by statute or regulation. DECISION Maxmed Healthcare, Inc., a small business of San Antonio, Texas, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. HT001523R0003, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency (DHA) for medical professional staffing services. Maxmed contends that the solicitation provides for competition without the evaluation of price, and improperly allows for the past performance evaluation of only one partner in a joint venture. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Medical Q-Coded Support and Services--Next Generation procurement at issue here was designed by DHA to establish multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, in two business-size categories, small business and unrestricted. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, RFP at 100.[1] Under these contracts, the agency can issue fixed-price task orders for a broad range of medical services such as physician, nursing, dental, and medical support, as well as ancillary services. Id. The protester challenges the terms of the small business set-aside RFP. DHA issued the solicitation on November 15, 2022, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15. AR, Tab 3, Original RFP at 1, 65; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The solicitation originally provided that the agency intended to issue up to ten IDIQ contracts, in five geographical areas of responsibility (AOR), “to each and all qualifying [o]fferors.”[2] AR, Tab 3, Original RFP at 65, 92 (citing the FAR section 2.101 definition of a qualifying offeror, as “an [o]fferor that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and [c]ontracting [o]fficer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.”). The RFP also originally instructed that: For the purposes of this solicitation, a technically acceptable proposal is an evaluated proposal with: (1) one of the ten (10) highest self-scored, [g]overnment-validated, [s]elf-[s]coring [t]echnical [c]apabilty [w]orksheets for the AOR in which the [o]fferor has proposed, AND (2) a satisfactory performance confidence rating. Id. at 92. The solicitation established that the agency would use a three-step evaluation process. Id. at 93. In step 1, DHA would assess proposal responsiveness, evaluating whether the proposal complied with submission instructions outlined in the addendum to FAR provision 52.212-1 in the solicitation. Id. If the proposal was found to be compliant, it would proceed to step 2, technical capability, where the agency would review the self-scoring sheet provided by offerors regarding, among other things, the scope, magnitude, and complexity of their experience in various contracts related to medical services. Id. at 93-94. Then, in step 3, the agency would evaluate offerors’ past performance. Id. at 94-95. On August 22, 2023, Maxmed filed a protest with our Office, challenging the terms of the solicitation; in particular, the protester contended that the planned competition and the agency’s evaluation method were contrary to applicable procurement laws and regulations. On September 15, DHA advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action by “review[ing] and revis[ing] its acquisition methodology.” Notice of Corrective Action B‑421623.3, Sept. 15, 2023, at 1. On the basis of the proposed corrective action, our Office dismissed the protest as academic.