TITLE: B-298438, United Medical Systems-DE, Inc., September 27, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298438
DATE: September 27, 2006
*************************************************************
B-298438, United Medical Systems-DE, Inc., September 27, 2006

   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: United Medical Systems-DE, Inc.

   File: B-298438

   Date: September 27, 2006

   Tenley A. Carp, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for the protester.

   Dennis Foley, Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

   Peter Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposed price for
   laser system is denied where record shows that (1) evaluation was based on
   only firm, fixed unit price set forth in proposal, and (2) alternate
   pricing in proposal--which, contrary to solicitation's pricing scheme,
   consisted of a range of prices based on [deleted] different sized fibers
   used with the laser--would have resulted in even higher evaluated price,
   since evaluation would have to be based on highest-priced fiber in order
   to reflect potential cost to government.

   DECISION

   United Medical Systems-DE, Inc. (UMS) protests the Department of Veterans
   Affairs' (VA) award of a contract to AKSM Guild, Inc. under request for
   proposals (RFP) No. 246-06-02587, for the rental of urology equipment and
   a technician for the operating room at VA's medical center in Salem,
   Virginia. UMS primarily alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its
   proposed price.

   We deny the protest.

   VA first issued a solicitation for these services as a total small
   business set-aside (RFP No. 246-06-02422) in November 2005. UMS submitted
   a proposal, but VA excluded the proposal from the competition on the basis
   that UMS was not a small business. VA then made award to AKSM, the only
   other offeror. On December 14, UMS filed a challenge to AKSM's small
   business size status, and the Small Business Administration (SBA)
   subsequently found AKSM to be other than small. Despite this finding, VA
   determined that it was not in the best interests of the government to
   terminate AKSM's contract. UMS challenged this determination in a protest
   filed with our Office, in response to which VA took corrective action by
   terminating the contract and recompeting the requirement. We thereafter
   dismissed UMS's protest as academic. (B-297940, Feb. 17, 2006).

   On March 15, 2006, VA issued the current RFP, without the small business
   set-aside, which provided for award for a base year, with 2 option years,
   to the firm whose proposal offered the "best value" to the government,
   considering technical, past performance, and price factors. The price
   schedule called for offerors to fill in blanks with unit and total prices
   for three items: a Holmium YAG laser system, standby charges for the laser
   system, and an extracorporeal shock wave lithotripter (ESWL). The base and
   option year prices were to be added to determine a total evaluated price.

   UMS and AKSM again were the only two firms to submit proposals. Regarding
   prices for the YAG laser system, UMS's proposal listed, in the appropriate
   blanks to the right of the item description, a unit price of $1,325 for
   the system and a total price of $15,900 (the price for 12 units) for the
   base year. In addition to the blanks next to the item description, the
   pricing sheet also contained another blank under the description, in which
   offerors were again to fill in the unit price for each item. Here, UMS did
   not write $1,325 for the laser system, but instead wrote [deleted]
   (emphasis in original), and then added [deleted] additional lines
   containing prices for [deleted] different size fibers (ranging from
   [deleted] to [deleted]). UMS repeated this pricing scheme for the YAG
   laser system for each of the option years, changing only the total prices
   to reflect the different number of units in the option years (25 units for
   each year). In contrast, AKSM's proposal listed a unit price of $900 for
   the YAG laser system in both the blank next to the description and the
   blank below the description. Regarding prices for the standby charges,
   UMS's proposal listed, in the appropriate blanks to the right of the item
   description, a unit price of $250 for standby charges, and a total price
   of $1,250 (the price for 5 units) for the base year. In the blank under
   the item description, UMS again listed $250, but included the phrase
   [deleted] (emphasis in original) after the unit price. Again, UMS repeated
   this pricing for each of the option years, changing only the total prices
   to reflect the changed number of units (10 units for each year). In
   contrast, AKSM's proposal listed standby charges of $475 in both blanks.
   Finally, for the ESWL, UMS listed a unit price of $875 in the blank next
   to the item description and the blank below the item description. AKSM
   listed a price of $1,400 in both places.

   After determining that each firm deserved the highest possible score under
   the technical and past performance evaluation factors, VA selected AKSM
   for award based on its total price of $102,675, which was lower than UMS's
   price of $110,175.

   UMS primarily alleges that VA performed an improper price evaluation.
   Specifically, whereas VA based UMS's total evaluated price on a unit price
   of $1,325 for the YAG laser system, UMS alleges that this was not its
   lowest possible price; rather, its lowest price was the price listed under
   the item description--[deleted] for the least expensive fiber, for a total
   unit price of $1,200. Since this price would have left UMS as the low
   offeror, it concludes that the agency's price evaluation was materially
   flawed.

   Where a protester challenges an agency's evaluation of proposals,
   including the evaluation of an offeror's proposed price, we will not
   reevaluate proposals; rather, we will examine the record to determine
   whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the
   stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and
   regulations. Liquidity Servs., Inc., B-294053, Aug. 18, 2004, 2005 CPD
   para. 130 at 5.

   The price evaluation here was reasonable. Regarding the laser system, it
   was proper for the agency to use $1,325 as the item price for evaluation
   purposes, given that $1,325 was the unit price that UMS provided in the
   space to the right of the item description, and that it was the only firm,
   fixed unit price offered. In any case, even if UMS were correct that its
   range pricing should have been used in the evaluation, $1,200 would not be
   the proper evaluated unit price. In this regard, where an offeror provides
   a range of prices where a single firm, fixed price is required, the
   evaluation must be based on the highest, not the lowest, price in the
   range, since this could be the ultimate cost to the government if award
   were made to that firm. See Tri-State Gov't Servs., Inc., B-277315.2, Oct.
   15, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 143 at 4-5. The highest unit price in UMS's
   proposed price range was [deleted] ([deleted] for the fiber). Accordingly,
   this price, not $1,200, would be the appropriate price for the agency to
   use if it were to evaluate UMS's range pricing.

   UMS asserts that the price analysis and best value determination were
   flawed because the agency did not evaluate the relative advantages of
   either UMS's standby price (that is, the fact that the agency would only
   be charged [deleted]) or its range of prices for fibers, including its
   lowest-priced fiber. This argument is without merit. Agencies are required
   to evaluate proposals based solely on the evaluation factors and
   subfactors included in the solicitation. Federal Acquisition Regulation
   (FAR) sect. 15.303(b)(4). Here, the solicitation did not provide for the
   pricing analysis the protester asserts was required, and it therefore
   would have been improper for the agency to take into consideration the
   factors UMS cites. The agency evaluated prices in accordance with the
   terms of the RFP, by calculating base year and option prices, and then
   combining these into a total price for evaluation purposes. Based on its
   determination that the proposals were technically equal, the agency then
   properly made award to AKSM based on its low evaluated price. FAR
   sect. 15.305(a)(1); Agency Report, Tab 9, at 2; see First Preston Housing
   Initiatives, LP, B-293105.2, Oct. 15, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 221 at 6.

   UMS also alleges that VA failed to treat offerors fairly by entering into
   discussions with the awardee, but not UMS. In this regard, the agency
   contacted AKSM prior to award and inquired about the availability of the
   firm's lithotripter. UMS asserts that this exchange constituted improper
   discussions.

   Exchanges between a procuring agency and an offeror that permit the
   offeror to materially modify its proposal generally constitute
   discussions. FAR sect. 15.306(d); Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training &
   Support, B-292836.8 et al., Nov. 24, 2004, 2005 CPD para. 27 at 8. Here,
   AKSM committed to performing the lithotripter-related work in its
   proposal; it took no exception to the requirement that it provide the
   equipment, and therefore was bound to do so. The information provided by
   AKSM in response to VA's exchanges confirmed that the contractor would
   have the necessary equipment to perform the work. Since this exchange
   merely confirmed what AKSM was already committed to do, and AKSM was not
   given the opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, the exchange
   constituted clarifications, and not discussions.

   UMS further alleges that the contracting officer acted in bad faith
   throughout the procurement, demonstrating favoritism toward the awardee
   and bias toward the protester. UMS cites as evidence of this bias, for
   example, UMS's exclusion from the first competition, the agency's initial
   decision not to terminate AKSM's original contract, and the agency's delay
   in then terminating that contract.

   Government officials are presumed to act in good faith, and a protester's
   claim that contracting officials were motivated by bias or bad faith must
   be supported by convincing proof; our Office will not attribute unfair or
   prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference or
   supposition. Shinwa Elecs., B-290603 et al., Sept. 3, 2002, 2002 CPD para.
   154 at 5 n.6. Here, the protester has provided no evidence of bad faith;
   rather, it draws an inference from a series of facts to support its
   allegation. For example, while UMS cites its exclusion from the original
   competition as evidence of bad faith, it presents no evidence that its
   exclusion was motivated by agency bad faith; rather, it asks, essentially,
   that we assume bad faith. The protester's conclusion that these actions
   demonstrate bad faith constitutes speculation, and is insufficient to
   support a finding of bad faith.[1]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] UMS's protest as filed contained a number of additional arguments:
   AKSM's equipment is unacceptable because it exceeds the decibel level
   allowed by law, AKSM should have been found nonresponsible due to an
   inspector general's investigation into a small business size
   miscertification, and AKSM was ineligible for award because it was not
   registered in the central contractor registration database at the time of
   award, as required by the solicitation. The agency addressed these
   arguments in its report, and UMS did not meaningfully respond in its
   comments; we therefore consider these arguments abandoned. See Symplicity
   Corp., B-297060, Nov. 8, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 203 at 5 n.6.