Hyperbaric Technologies, Inc.

B-293047.4, Hyperbaric Technologies, Inc., March 29, 2004

We deny the protest.

The Hyperbaric Medicine Division at Brooks City-Base is a medical treatment facility which has two cylindrical multiplace hyperbaric chambers that can accommodate two or more patients, medical personnel, patient attendants and/or a chamber operator. The hyperbaric chambers are pressurized and are used to treat patient wounds or infections by administering oxygen (or other gases) directly into the patient's body to aid in healing. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 12-16, 233-34.[1]

The RFP was issued on June 20, 2003 as a commercial item acquisition and, as amended, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract on a –best value— basis for the successful contractor to upgrade the main hyperbaric chamber (Chamber 1) and to remove, design and replace the smaller –Panama— hyperbaric chamber
(Chamber 2). The statement of work (SOW) described the –minimum requirements— needed to upgrade and modernize both chambers, the associated equipment and support systems. RFP amend. 1, Questions and Answers (Q&A) No. 40
(July 15, 2003).[2] These upgrades include improvements to the fire suppression systems, and the chamber control systems for both hyperbaric chambers, and the installation and integration of a new state-of-the-art central control console system. RFP amend. 1, at 7. The solicitation further required that this central control console system should be a 21st century automated system with touch screen control capability and user-friendly operating system that can operate both multiplace chambers simultaneously. Id. at 8.

In response to a question posed by a potential offeror, the VA also addressed the central control console touch screen capability requirements. The Q&A was as follows:

Q: Your replies to our questions concerning an automated system were satisfactory, however, in paragraph 1.5.1 there has been added a requirement for a touch screen control for the automated system. HTI's automated FDA [United States Food and Drug Administration] approved control system is operated by touching buttons versus touching a touch screen. In both cases automation is achieved by touching one button. Given our FDA automated hyperbaric control system approval, will our system be satisfacory?
A: [USAF] wants touch screen capability. However, we will evaluate all proposals and select the best one that meets our requirements.
RFP amend. 2, Q&A No. 1 (July 28, 2003). As to Chamber 2, offerors were required to design the replacement multiplace chamber with the best possible space utilization that provided a minimum of 2-gurney, or 6-ambulatory, or 4-wheelchair patient capability and with chamber door openings designed for easy gurney and wheelchair access. RFP amend. 1, at 8. The RFP also included special requirements for Chamber 2 which, among other things, identified various codes, regulations, and standards with which offerors were to comply. RFP amend. 2, at 4. One of these special requirements was as follows:

All applicable systems and installations must meet or exceed
the most current National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) Chapter 20 [codes] for Hyperbaric Facilities, and ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] guidelines on Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy (PVHO) at the time of final inspection.
Id.

The RFP provided for the evaluation of proposals on the basis of the following 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

RFP amend. 1, at 18. The solicitation advised that the technical capability and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Offerors were required to submit technical proposals which addressed how they would meet the project's objectives and contained sufficient technical data and performance specifications to support their proposed hyperbaric design solution, including their proposed equipment and components. RFP amend. 1, at 19-20. The solicitation also advised that offerors whose offered equipment or components exceeded the solicitation requirements would –be evaluated based upon any added benefit— to the government. Id. at 19.

The agency received proposals from [DELETED] offerors, including HTI and PCCI, by the August 1, 2003 extended closing date. A four-member technical evaluation panel (TEP) from Brooks City-Base performed an initial evaluation of technical proposals using a qualitative rating system set forth in the source selection plan. Under each nonprice factor and subfactor, the evaluators assigned an excellent rating using a weighted variable of 1.0 to PCCI's proposal and assigned a very good rating with a weighted variable of 0.8 to HTI's proposal.[3] Based on the results of the initial evaluation of proposals, the agency concluded that all [DELETED] proposals should be included in the competitive range.[4] Agency Report (AR) exh. D, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 6 (Sept. 19, 2003). The agency requested and received proposal revisions. The final evaluation results were as follows: