BNUMBER:  B-274585
DATE:  November 18, 1996
TITLE:  CardioMetrix

**********************************************************************

Matter of:CardioMetrix

File:     B-274585

Date:November 18, 1996

Robert J. Loring for the protester.
Lyman Goon, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that the solicitation as amended was ambiguous is untimely 
where filed after the next closing date for receipt of proposals 
following the amendment;  protester may not simply make unsupported 
assumptions regarding the meaning of the solicitation and then expect 
relief when the agency does not interpret the solicitation in the 
manner the protester assumed it would.  

DECISION

CardioMetrix protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 
SSA-96-0001, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA), for 
health care services.  The protester argues that as amended, as 
evaluation factor in the solicitation was ambiguous, and that had it 
understood the agency's interpretation of the evaluation factor, it 
would have proposed a different physician in order to qualify for a 
more favorable evaluation.  

We dismiss the protest.

The RFP, issued on April 17, 1996, requested proposals for a 
fixed-price contract for a base year with 4 option years to provide 
physician services for a federal employee's health clinic in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Technical factors were equal in 
importance to price.  

The evaluation factors included minimum pass/fail qualification 
requirements for the proposed primary and substitute physician.  Among 
other things, the proposed physicians were required to be "board 
certified or board eligible" in either occupational medicine, internal 
medicine, family practice, or emergency medicine, and to have a 
minimum of 2 years of "hands on" clinical experience in one of four 
identified medical fields.  In this regard, the RFP instructed 
offerors to provide, among other things, "evidence of board 
certification in internal medicine, family practice or occupational 
medicine or your certification that the offered physicians are board 
eligible."  The RFP also included technical evaluation factors which 
only applied to the primary physician.  As amended, the RFP contained 
the following technical evaluation factors and associated points:  (1) 
board certification in occupational medicine (5 points); (2) 5 points 
for every full year of experience not to exceed the following 
maximums: occupational medicine (50 points); internal medicine, 
general family practice, or emergency medicine (25 points); 
(3) experience in a facility providing occupational medicine to a 
large organization.  Amendment No. 3 of the RFP provided that, with 
regard to the experience evaluation factor described above, "[a] 
physician will be given points only for experience in the field(s) in 
which they are certified or eligible." 

The agency received five proposals and after evaluation of initial 
proposals, established a competitive range consisting of the proposals 
of CardioMetrix and 
Dr. Talukdar.  Written discussions were conducted with the two 
competitive range offerors, and both offerors submitted best and final 
offers (BAFO) by the July 30 closing date.  The BAFO's were evaluated, 
and while Dr. Talukdar's proposal received a slightly lower technical 
score than CardioMetrix's proposal, the agency decided that Dr. 
Talukdar's proposal represented the best value to the government based 
on its significantly lower price.  This protest followed.

CardioMetrix argues that the experience evaluation factor, as amended, 
was ambiguous.  While recognizing that this amended evaluation factor 
provides that "[a] physician will be given points for experience in 
the field(s) in which they are certified or eligible," CardioMetrix 
contends that because the solicitation was ambiguous, it was unaware 
that "certified or eligible" meant board certified or board 
eligible.[1]  

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, alleged improprieties which do not 
exist in the initial solicitation which are subsequently incorporated 
into the solicitation must be protested not later than the next 
closing time for receipt of proposal following the incorporation.  
Section 21.2 (a) (1), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,740 (Aug. 10, 1995) (to 
be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1)); Perkin-Elmer Corp., B-250869, 
Dec. 10, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  404.  

Although CardioMetrix alleges that the amended experience factor 
created a latent defect in the RFP, i.e., a defect which could not be 
detected prior to closing, any possible ambiguity in this regard was 
apparent on the face of the solicitation and thus had to be protested 
prior to the next closing following the incorporation of amendment No. 
3.  CardioMetrix could not reasonably rely on its unsupported notion 
that "certified or eligible" meant anything other than board certified 
or board eligible, where the phrases "board certified" and "board 
eligible" were used throughout the RFP and, in context, the questioned 
reference clearly has the same meaning.  Protesters do not have the 
option of simply making unwarranted assumptions regarding the meaning 
of a provision in the RFP and then expect relief when the agency does 
not apply the provision in the manner the protester assumed.  See Home 
Care Medical, Inc., B-245189, Aug. 21, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  186.  If 
CardioMetrix believed that the reference in amendment 3 to the 
shorthand phrase "certified or eligible" was somehow inconsistent with 
the longer version of the same phrase otherwise used in the 
solicitation, CardioMetrix was required to protest this alleged 
ambiguity prior to the next closing time--which it failed to do.

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. CardioMetrix initially questioned whether the awardee, Dr. 
Talukdar, met the mandatory 2-year clinical experience requirement.  
The agency addressed this allegation in its report on the protest, 
explaining how Dr. Talukdar did, in fact, satisfy this requirement, 
and CardioMetrix did not respond in its comments.  We therefore 
consider CardioMetrix to have abandoned this allegation.  See D & M 
General Contracting, Inc., B-259995; B-259995.2, May 8, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
235.