The protester challenged whether the agency fairly evaluated the proposals based on specified measurement requirements or applied inconsistent standards between competing bids. The protester argued that its proposal was unfairly deemed unacceptable due to a misinterpretation of what constituted acceptable measurements. GAO found that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and adhered to the solicitation requirements. The protester’s products did not fit the necessary specifications set in the solicitation.
Joerns Healthcare, LLC, GAO B-423455.2; B-423455.3; B-423455.4
- Background – The agency issued a request for proposals for electric hospital beds intended for use by disabled and elderly individuals outside of hospital settings. After the protester submitted its proposal, it was invited to undergo a two-phase evaluation. The agency later determined that the protester’s beds did not meet the minimum width requirements as specified in the solicitation and eliminated its proposal from further consideration. Following a debriefing, the protester filed this protest challenging the evaluation decision.
- Material Compliance – The protester contended that its proposal met the solicitation’s minimum technical requirements (MTRs) according to commercial industry standards favoring “nominal measurements” over actual. GAO ruled that the solicitation clearly outlined specific requirements, and the agency reasonably deemed the protester’s proposal non-compliant due to actual measurements falling short of the specified widths. The agency’s insistence on adhering to these precise measurements was upheld as reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s clear terms.
- Allegations of Disparate Treatment – The protester also alleged that the agency’s different treatment of its proposal compared to a competing offer demonstrated unfair evaluation practices. The protester argued that the agency accepted a non-compliant proposal from the awardee while excluding its own compliant submission. GAO found this claim unsubstantiated. The agency’s evaluations were based on differences in the proposals themselves and were backed by sufficient evidence showing that the awardee’s measurements were compliant while the protester’s were not.
The protester is represented by Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Timothy J. Whittle, Esq., and Winni Zhang, Esq. of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The government is represented by Linh Adams, Esq., and Laura Reass, Esq. of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq. participated in the decision.
