Joerns Healthcare, LLC (36C10G25R0011)

B-423455.2,B-423455.3,B-423455.4 Sep 09, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Joerns Healthcare, LLC, a small business of Charlotte, North Carolina, protests its exclusion from the competitive range after submitting a proposal in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10G25R0011, issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration, for in-home hospital beds and accessories. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Joerns's proposal as unacceptable and applied a disparate evaluation standard when eliminating Joerns from the competition. The protester further argues that the agency unreasonably assigned various weaknesses to Joerns's proposal. 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 version has been approved for public release without redactions.   Decision Matter of: Joerns Healthcare, LLC File: B-423455.2; B-423455.3; B-423455.4 Date: September 9, 2025 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Timothy J. Whittle, Esq., and Winni Zhang, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Linh Adams, Esq., and Laura Reass, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably determined that protester's proposal failed to comply with material solicitation requirements, thereby rendering the proposal ineligible for award. 2. Protest alleging unequal treatment in the evaluation of proposals is denied where the protester has not demonstrated that the differences in the evaluation did not stem from differences in the proposals. DECISION Joerns Healthcare, LLC, a small business of Charlotte, North Carolina, protests its exclusion from the competitive range after submitting a proposal in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10G25R0011, issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration, for in-home hospital beds and accessories. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Joerns's proposal as unacceptable and applied a disparate evaluation standard when eliminating Joerns from the competition. The protester further argues that the agency unreasonably assigned various weaknesses to Joerns's proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation for this procurement on February 5, 2025, as a competitive small business set-aside in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, and the procedures in FAR part 15, contracting by negotiation. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4.3, RFP at 8, 52.[1] The solicitation sought electric hospital beds and accessories designed for disabled and elderly individuals under VA care outside of a hospital setting. Id. The solicitation contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts--each with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options and a maximum shared ceiling of $260 million. RFP at 1, 8. The RFP identified three non-price evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: technical, past performance, and socioeconomic considerations. Id. at 59. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. Contract awards would be made to responsible offerors whose proposals conformed to the solicitation and were the most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. Id. at 60. At issue in this protest, the solicitation specified 26 minimum technical requirements (MTRs) that all proposed bed products must meet to be considered acceptable. RFP at 8, 61-70. For the evaluation of the technical factor, the assessment of compliance with these MTRs was to be conducted in two phases. Id. at 61-62. For phase I, the agency would evaluate product literature accompanying proposed bed products. Id. The solicitation stated that “[s]ubmissions that meet minimum requirements, as demonstrated by review of the technical literature, will be determined to be technically acceptable for documentation review[.]” Id. at 62. For the phase II evaluation, agency evaluators would physically inspect each proposed bed product to ensure each item met all of the MTRs. Id. The solicitation stated further that “[i]f any proposed products do not meet MTRs (literature review) and/or physical inspection as specified, the proposal will be considered non-responsive and eliminated from further consideration.” Id. Relevant here, the solicitation requirements include an “Advanced Electric Bed Frame” as MTR 1a, and a “Basic Electric Bed Frame” as MTR 1b, and the solicitation specified minimum measurement requirements for each product. Id.