TITLE:  Washington Adventist Hospital, B-294371.3; B-294371.4, January 21, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-294371.3; B-294371.4
DATE:  January 21, 2005

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

   Decision

   Matter of:   Washington Adventist Hospital

   File:            B-294371.3; B-294371.4

   Date:           January 21, 2005

   Paul M. Vincent, Esq., and E. John Steren, Esq., Ober, Kaler, Grimes &
Shriver, for the protester.

   Douglas W. Kornreich, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for
the agency.

   Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   In solicitation for hospital to partner with agency in establishing
cardiothoracic surgery branch, geographical restriction requiring hospital
to be within 10-minute walk or 5-minute drive from agency campus is
reasonable where record shows restriction is necessary to meet agency's
programmatic needs, which include quick accessibility to campus and
hospital due to frequent interaction between program members in different
locations.

   DECISION

   Washington Adventist Hospital (WAH) protests the geographical restriction
in solicitation No. NHLBI-HI-05-18, issued by the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), National Institute of Heart, Lung and Blood Institute
(NHLBI), for a hospital to partner with the agency in establishing a
cardiothoracic surgery branch (CTSB).

   We deny the protest.

   Prior to 1990, as part of its intramural research branch, NHLBI included a
CTSB, which linked basic laboratory research and clinical investigation
and served as a research and training program for surgeons.  NHLBI desires
to reestablish the CTSB, but does not have the facilities or staff to
provide treatment for patients requiring acute or emergency cardiac care. 
As a result, the agency determined that the best way to accomplish its
goals was to collaborate with an outside hospital, with surgeries taking
place there and research being performed at the hospital and at the NHLBI
laboratory.  NHLBI further determined that it would be necessary for the
hospital to be in close proximity to the agency's research laboratory, in
order to minimize the time spent by program participants traveling between
the two facilities, and to maximize the time they could devote to research
activities while also responding to patient needs.  Consequently, in its
November 4, 2004, "sources sought" synopsis, the agency announced its
intention to award a sole-source contract to Suburban Hospital, the only
hospital a short distance from NHLBI.  Among other things, the synopsis
stated the requirement that the offeror be within a 5-minute drive or a
10-minute walk of the NHLBI campus; only Suburban Hospital meets this
restriction. 

   WAH, which is approximately 9.2 to 10.8 miles and 15 to 22 minutes from
the campus by car (the protester's and agency's calculations differ),
challenges the proposed sole-source award on the basis that the
geographical restriction is not warranted.  WAH asserts that its
facilities are close enough to the NHLBI campus for the program to
succeed, and that it would bring other benefits to the program--such as
its experience as a leading cardiac-surgery institution and the fact that,
unlike Suburban Hospital, it has existing facilities--that, overall, would
make it a better choice than Suburban Hospital.  

   A contracting agency has the primary responsibility for determining its
minimum needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Daniel Tech.,
Inc., B-288853, Dec. 13, 2001, 2001 CPD P 203.  An agency properly may
restrict a procurement to offerors within a specified area if it shows
that the restriction is reasonably necessary for the agency to meet its
needs.  Imperial 400 Motor Inn, B-227270, Aug. 21, 1987, 87-2 CPD P 192. 

   NHLBI has shown that the geographical restriction here is necessary to
meet its needs.  Key to the CTSB that the agency has in mind is the
concept--based on the academic model--of a medical campus, where close
proximity of the hospital and laboratory will facilitate the close daily
interaction between NHLBI personnel, hospital personnel and patients that
is necessary to permit the desired intellectual integration between basic
science, clinical investigations and patient care.  More specifically, it
is intended that the surgeons in the laboratory will collaborate with the
basic investigators in the Division of Intramural Research in the NHLBI
building.  The research products will then be translated into clinical
investigations at the collaborating hospital in a "bench-to-bedside"
approach.  Draft Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition at
2.  The agency explains that the typical work day of the lead
cardiothoracic surgeon will involve multiple trips between the hospital
and the laboratory, with the lead surgeon typically beginning the work day
in the laboratory, traveling to the hospital to conduct patient rounds and
perform clinical investigations during surgery, returning to the
laboratory to spend time with the research team, returning to the hospital
to see patients, and then ending the day at the laboratory.  Agency Report
(AR) at 7.  In addition, meetings with other investigators, collaborators
and staff will occur daily and require the surgeon to move from the
clinical area to the research facility in a timely fashion.  AR at 11.  It
is the agency's view that this ongoing and frequent interaction between
the scientists, clinicians and patients will bring basic science changes
in surgery into clinical practice more quickly through an integrated
research approach.  AR at 11.

   The agency has reasonably established both that (1) it has a need for the
participants in the CTSB to have quick access to other participants,
patients, and the research laboratory--indeed, this appears to be a
driving force behind the agency's decision to establish a CTSB, and (2)
that the small geographic area in which the hospital may be
located--essentially, within walking and 5-minute driving proximity to the
agency's existing facilities--is reasonably related to that need; the
benefits inherent in such an arrangement would be diminished if the
hospital were at a greater distance from the agency's facilities.  While
the protester may be correct that it holds certain advantages over
Suburban Hospital with regard to cardiac surgery, the decision whether to
pursue those advantages in lieu of proximity of the partnering hospital to
its facilities involves the agency's judgment as to its minimum needs. 
Simply put, the agency has determined that proximity is a greater need,
and there is no basis for us to conclude that this determination was
unreasonable.  See Vicksburg Fed. Bldg. Ltd. P'ship, B-230660, May 26,
1988, 88-1 CPD P 515 (geographical restriction is reasonable where
necessary to minimize travel time between buildings where occupants of the
buildings work closely together).  WAH asserts that the purported need for
proximity is a matter of mere administrative convenience.  We disagree. 
The need is based on the nature of the work the agency hopes to accomplish
under the program, not the convenience of agency personnel.  We conclude
that the geographical restriction is unobjectionable. 

   The protest is denied. 

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel
