Concordance Healthcare Solutions, LLC (36C10X24R0014)

B-422689,B-422689.2,B-422689.3,B-422689.4,B-422690,B-422690.2,B-422690.3,B-422690.4,B-422692,B-422692.2,B-422693,B-422693.2,B-422693.3 Sep 16, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., of Mechanicsville, Virginia, Cardinal Health 200, LLC, of Waukegan, Illinois, and Concordance Healthcare Solutions, of Riverside, California, protest the issuance of delivery orders Nos. 36C10X24N0089, 36C10X24N0108, 36C10X24N0088, and 36C10X24N0074 to Medline Industries, LP, of Northfield, Illinois, under delivery order proposal requests (DOPR) Nos. 36C10X24R0007, 36C10X24R0017, 36C10X24R0020, and 36C10X24R0014, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for distribution and supply management of medical and surgical supplies. The protesters contend that the agency: improperly evaluated technical proposals; failed to consider information relevant to the agency's affirmative responsibility determination; and failed to reasonably evaluate whether the awardee possesses disqualifying organizational conflicts of interest (OCI). We deny the protests. 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: Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc.; Cardinal Health 200, LLC; Concordance Healthcare Solutions File: B‑422689; B‑422689.2; B‑422689.3; B‑422689.4; B‑422690; B‑422690.2; B‑422690.3; B‑422690.4; B‑422692; B‑422692.2; B‑422693; B‑422693.2; B‑422693.3 Date: September 16, 2024 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Tara D. Hopkins, Esq., and John M. Tanner, Esq., Haynes and Boone, LLP, for Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc.; Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Concordance Healthcare Solutions; and Merle M. DeLancey, Esq., and Michael J. Slattery, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for Cardinal Health 200, LLC, the protesters. Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Sonia Tabriz, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Amanda J. Sherwood, Esq., Roee Talmor, Esq., and Kyung Liu‑Katz, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for Medline Industries, LP, the intervenor. Linh N. Adams, Esq., Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Laura B. Reass, Esq., and Jason M. Fragoso, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. GAO has jurisdiction to consider protests of the issuance of delivery orders notwithstanding that the total evaluated prices fall below the relevant jurisdictional threshold where the total awarded values of the orders include additional funds to reimburse the awardees for costs to be paid to authorized suppliers and such costs are not merely pass‑through payments. 2. Protests challenging the agency’s evaluations of proposals are denied where the agency’s evaluations were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitations. 3. Protests challenging the agency’s affirmative responsibility determinations are denied where the agency considered matters alleged to have been ignored or where the protester fails to demonstrate that the agency knew or had reason to know of them. 4. Supplemental protests alleging that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate for organizational conflicts of interests are dismissed where those allegations are materially indistinguishable from the protester’s initial related arguments that were previously dismissed as untimely. DECISION Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., of Mechanicsville, Virginia, Cardinal Health 200, LLC, of Waukegan, Illinois, and Concordance Healthcare Solutions, of Riverside, California, protest the issuance of delivery orders Nos. 36C10X24N0089, 36C10X24N0108, 36C10X24N0088, and 36C10X24N0074 to Medline Industries, LP, of Northfield, Illinois, under delivery order proposal requests (DOPR) Nos. 36C10X24R0007, 36C10X24R0017, 36C10X24R0020, and 36C10X24R0014, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for distribution and supply management of medical and surgical supplies. The protesters contend that the agency: improperly evaluated technical proposals; failed to consider information relevant to the agency’s affirmative responsibility determination; and failed to reasonably evaluate whether the awardee possesses disqualifying organizational conflicts of interest (OCI). We deny the protests.[1] BACKGROUND These protests arise under the agency’s Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor (MSPV) Gen‑Z V1 program, which provides distribution and supply management of all required medical, surgical, dental, and laboratory supplies to Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and other governmental agencies (OGA). Agency Report (AR), Tab 1.O, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2‑3.