TITLE: B-299737, HealthStar VA, PLLC, June 22, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299737
DATE: June 22, 2007
********************************************
B-299737, HealthStar VA, PLLC, June 22, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: HealthStar VA, PLLC

   File: B-299737

   Date: June 22, 2007

   Jason A. Stuart, Esq., Ball & Stuart, PLLC, for the protester.
   Dennis Foley, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
   Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   It is the offeror's burden to submit an adequately written proposal; an
   offeror, including an incumbent contractor, must furnish, within its
   proposal, all information that was requested or necessary to demonstrate
   its capabilities in response to the solicitation.

   DECISION

   HealthStar VA, PLLC protests the award of a contract to Valor Health Care,
   issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, under request for proposals
   (RFP) No. 598A-77-05, for a community based outpatient clinic in the Hot
   Springs, Arkansas area to provide primary medical care for assigned
   veteran patients.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP informed offerors that the proposal was required to be submitted
   in two separate volumes: volume I - the business proposal and volume II -
   the technical proposal, and "must include all information that the
   government requests." RFP amend. 3, at 62. The technical proposal was
   limited to 75 pages and was to be formatted to coincide with the four
   evaluation factors: Factor A -- Provision of Services, Factor B --
   Customer Service, Factor C -- Quality Management, and Factor D -- Past
   Performance. Id. at 63-64. The technical proposal instructions stated that
   the technical proposal "should be specific and complete" and that "simply
   repeating or paraphrasing the Statement of Work/Specification is not
   acceptable." Id. at 64. The instructions for Factor C required each
   proposal to provide, "licensing and accreditation of [the] facility[,] . .
   . applications and proof of licensure for all professional staff[,] . . .
   and evidence that the support staff is competent within the scope of their
   positions, with education and/or experience levels." Id. at 69

   The basis of award weighted technical merit at 75 percent and price at 25
   percent. Id. at 64. The RFP also stated that as the technical merit of the
   proposals became more equal, price may become the determining factor. Id.
   The RFP stated that the agency planned to evaluate proposals and make
   award without discussions, so that initial proposals should contain the
   offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Id. at 60.

   Four proposals, including HealthStar's and Valor's, were received by the
   February 9 closing date. The source selection evaluation team (SSET)
   determined that only HealthStar's and Valor's proposals were technically
   acceptable. Neither of these proposals was found to represent a
   significant technical advantage by the source selection authority. Since
   Valor offered the lower price at $8,489,761 as compared to HealthStar's
   $9,117,371, Valor was selected for award. Agency Report, Tab 8, Source
   Selection Document, at 2-3.

   After award was made, the agency conducted a debriefing with HealthStar on
   April 23. During the debriefing, HealthStar was informed of two
   significant weaknesses found in its proposal: a failure to adequately
   address the services to be provided for patient-focused care and a failure
   to provide proof of licensing of nursing staff and competency of support
   staff. This protest followed on April 26.

   Our review of HealthStar's proposal indicates that the assignment of these
   two weaknesses was well-founded. Nevertheless, HealthStar, the incumbent
   contractor, complains that it was not evaluated in a reasonable manner
   because the agency should have considered its knowledge of its incumbent
   contract performance in evaluating these areas. In its protest filings
   addressing the patient-focused care weakness, HealthStar details in its
   protest a plethora of patient-focused services, which were admittedly not
   identified in its proposal due to page constraints. With regard to the
   other significant weakness, HealthStar asserts that its proposal stated
   that all professional staff were licensed, in good standing, credentialed
   in the Veterans Administration system, and that copies, while not included
   in its proposal, were available on file in the Central Arkansas Veterans
   Healthcare System or would be provided upon request; again, HealthStar
   asserts that the agency was aware of these licenses because of its
   incumbent status, which were not submitted due to the page limitations.

   An offeror's technical evaluation is dependent upon the information
   furnished; there is no legal basis for favoring a firm with presumptions
   on the basis of its incumbent status. It is the offeror's burden to submit
   an adequately written proposal; an offeror, including an incumbent
   contractor, must furnish, within its proposal, all information that was
   requested or necessary to demonstrate its capabilities in response to the
   solicitation. Computerized Project Mgmt. Plus, B-247063, Apr. 28, 1992,
   92-1 CPD para. 401 at 3. Based on this record, the agency's assignment of
   the two weaknesses to HealthStar's proposal because it did not provide the
   information requested by the RFP was reasonable.[1]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] To the extent that HealthStar complains about the solicitation's page
   limit restrictions, this concerns an apparent solicitation impropriety
   that must be protested prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals
   in order to be timely under our Bid Protest Regulations. 4 C.F.R. sect.
   21.2(a)(1) (2007).