Matter of: CardioMetrix File: B-257236.2 Date: October 6, 1994
Highlights
Protest that solicitation fee schedule is "cumbersome. Impractical" is denied where the fee schedule was required by applicable law and regulation. Asserting that the solicitation was defective because it did not provide a fee schedule and because it permitted psychologists and psychiatrists to perform physical examinations. CardioMetrix filed the current protest asserting that the amendment failed to adequately address its concerns because the proposed fee schedule is "totally cumbersome. The contracting officer was required to use the fee schedule when preparing this RFP for second medical opinions for claimants under FECA.[2] Accordingly. We have no basis to conclude that the fee schedule included in this solicitation was improper.
Matter of: CardioMetrix File: B-257236.2 Date: October 6, 1994
Protest that solicitation fee schedule is "cumbersome, unwieldy, and impractical" is denied where the fee schedule was required by applicable law and regulation.
Attorneys
DECISION
CardioMetrix protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. L/A 94-4, issued by the Department of Labor for medical second opinion services for the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs for claimants under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). CardioMetrix contends that the RFP specifications remain defective despite an agency's amendment to the solicitation addressing the protester's stated concerns.
We deny the protest.
The agency issued the RFP on March 22, 1994, seeking proposals for a firm, fixed-price contract for a base year with four 1-year options. The solicitation calls for a contractor to provide medical second opinion services for FECA claimants residing in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.[1] CardioMetrix filed a protest in our Office on May 6, asserting that the solicitation was defective because it did not provide a fee schedule and because it permitted psychologists and psychiatrists to perform physical examinations.
Our Office dismissed that protest as academic after the agency addressed CardioMetrix's concerns in an amendment which included a fee schedule and stated that only licensed physicians may perform physical examinations. On June 24, CardioMetrix filed the current protest asserting that the amendment failed to adequately address its concerns because the proposed fee schedule is "totally cumbersome, unwieldy and impractical," and because the RFP still provides for psychiatrists to perform physical exams.
The agency adopted the fee schedule on June 9, 1986, pursuant to its authority under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8103(a) and (b) (1988), to approve or authorize "necessary and reasonable" expenses incurred in administering FECA. Thus, the contracting officer was required to use the fee schedule when preparing this RFP for second medical opinions for claimants under FECA.[2] Accordingly, we have no basis to conclude that the fee schedule included in this solicitation was improper. See CardioMetrix, B-244837, Nov. 20, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 483.
Next, CardioMetrix contends that the RFP allegedly still provides for psychiatrists to perform physical examinations, which it characterizes as "ludicrous" because psychiatrists are mental disorder specialists rather than physical disorder specialists.
In fact, as the agency points out, there is no "requirement" that a FECA claimant be referred to a psychiatrist for a second medical opinion, which includes, among other things, a physical examination. Rather, the solicitation states that in certain instances the Division of Federal Employees' Compensation must refer a claimant to a "specialist in an appropriate field for a second medical opinion." [Emphasis added.] Similarly, paragraph CE(4) of solicitation concerning physical examinations in connection with second opinions only requires such examinations "as appropriate." Thus, CardioMetrix's interpretation of the solicitation requirement is both unfounded and implausible.
The protest is denied.
1. Under FECA, medical care and compensation for wage loss and for permanent physical impairment are provided to federal employees who are injured in the performance of duty. In certain instances, a claimant must be referred to a specialist in an appropriate field for a second medical opinion. According to the RFP, the specialist rendering the second medical opinion will review the claim file, perform a physical examination, prepare a narrative medical report responding to questions posed by the claims examiner, and perform any necessary clinical or laboratory tests.
2. Subsequent to the filing of this protest the agency has since adopted another fee schedule applicable to FECA, promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration, 59 Fed. Reg. 8529-8530 (1994).