Hyperbaric Technologies, Inc.

B-293047.2,B-293047.3: Feb 11, 2004

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Hyperbaric Technologies, Inc. (HTI) protests the corrective action taken by the Department of Veterans Affairs in response to an earlier protest filed by HTI under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-FDF3-03-0002, for the upgrade and replacement of hyperbaric chambers at Brooks Air Force Base (AFB) in Texas.

We deny the protest.

B-293047.2; B-293047.3, Hyperbaric Technologies, Inc., February 11, 2004




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:

File:

Date:











DECISION

Hyperbaric Technologies, Inc. (HTI) protests the corrective action taken by the Department of Veterans Affairs in response to an earlier protest filed by HTI under request for proposals (RFP) No. 797-FDF3-03-0002, for the upgrade and replacement of hyperbaric chambers at Brooks Air Force Base (AFB) in Texas.

We deny the protest.

As a matter of background, we note that the current protest is one of several challenges that have been filed by HTI in connection with this procurement. HTI initially protested a previous solicitation for this acquisition, RFP No. 797-FDF4-02-0041, alleging that the agency's evaluation and award decision under that solicitation was unreasonable. HTI's protest (B-291681.2) was dismissed by our Office as academic in light of the agency's cancellation of the solicitation; the agency had determined, among other things, that the technical evaluation factors needed to be clarified and that, in any event, the agency's needs had changed substantially, warranting a resolicitation.

The RFP, as reissued on June 20, 2003, solicited proposals for the upgrade and replacement of hyperbaric chambers and for related services at the Hyperbaric Medicine Division of the United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous and represented the best value to the government. The RFP identified the following evaluation factors and subfactors:


1. Technical Capability


a. Suitability of overall upgrades/new chamber

b. Proposal demonstrates understanding of requirements

c. Overall quality and technical specifications

2. Past Performance


a. Experience

b. Reported customer satisfaction/testimonials

3. Price


Id.



Factor

Subfactor

Point Value

Technical
Capability

Suitability of overall upgrades/new chamber

[DELETED]

Proposal demonstrates understanding
of requirements


[DELETED]

Overall quality and technical specifications

[DELETED]

Total Technical Points

[DELETED]

Past
Performance

Experience

[DELETED]

Reported customer satisfaction/testimonials

[DELETED]

Total Past Performance Points

[DELETED]

Price

Total Points

[DELETED]








1. Technical Capability


a. Suitability of overall upgrades/new chamber

b. Proposal demonstrates understanding of requirements

c. Overall quality and technical specifications

2. Price

3. Past Performance


a. Experience

b. Reported customer satisfaction/testimonials




[1]



Strand Hunt Constr., Inc.
SMS Data Prods. Group, Inc. Main Bldg. Maint., Inc. Id. Networks Elec. Corp.


[2] See Maryland Office Relocators Logicon RDA




[3]



[4]





[1]Other than a minor change that neither party claims has a material impact, the amendment retained the RFP's relative weighting of the subfactors of the technical capability and past performance factors. RFP amend. 3, at 2.
[2]The VA correctly notes that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that solicitations set forth the relative importance of all factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award (which the RFP had not done), as well as inform offerors (as the RFP had done) whether, when combined, the nonprice factors are either (1) significantly more important than price; (2) equal to price; or
(3) significantly less important than price. FAR 15.304(d), (e).
[3]On December 22, 2003 HTI filed another protest (B-293047.4) of an award to PCCI; this protest is pending. Our Office intends to issue a separate decision addressing the merits of that protest.
[4]HTI also requests that we recommend that the agency reimburse the firm for protest costs, including attorneys' fees. As to its earlier protest (B-293047), we deny the request because the VA took reasonably prompt corrective action. HSQ Tech.--Costs, B'276050.2, June 25, 1997, 97-1 CPD 228 at 2. As to this protest of the corrective action, because we are denying the protest, there is no basis for us to recommend reimbursement of costs to the protester.

Oct 24, 2014

Oct 23, 2014

Oct 22, 2014

Looking for more? Browse all our products here