The GAO attorney also noted that the solicitation required only the capability for chair egress and, based on photographs and descriptions in Sizewises quotation, it was unclear that Sizewises bed did not permit chair egress.

During the conference, the GAO attorney noted that the contemporaneous record included no information regarding how or why the agency determined that Sizewises bed failed to meet the chair egress requirement. at 9-12.Īfter reviewing the record, the cognizant GAO attorney conducted an outcome prediction alternative dispute resolution (ADR) telephone conference. Finally, Sizewise responded to the agencys position regarding the past performance and discussions claims. Sizewise also responded that its bed complied with the FDA guidance document, as reflected by detailed information in its quotation. In its comments on the agency report, Sizewise responded that its bed permits chair egress and that the footboard with the electrical box is easily removable. Finally, the agency refuted Sizewises allegations regarding the evaluation of past performance and discussions.

The contracting officer also asserted that Sizewises bed failed tests related to the FDA hospital bed safety guidance document that was referenced in the solicitation. In response to the protest, the agency filed a report with our Office in which the contracting officer asserted that Sizewises bed was not capable positioning as required for Chair Egress, apparently due to an electrical box attached to the beds footboard. Sizewise also asserted that the agency improperly failed to consider the firms past performance and that the agency conducted discussions with the firm that were not meaningful. In its protest, Sizewise asserted that the agencys finding that its bed failed to meet solicitation requirements was unreasonable. The agency then selected Hill-Rom for award, and Sizewise filed a protest with our Office. After an evaluation, the Agency concluded that the bed quoted by Sizewise did not permit chair egress and failed an ∿DA Entrapment Test, and, therefore, Sizewise was ineligible for award. Sizewise quoted a lower price than Hill-Rom. Several vendors, including Sizewise and Hill-Rom, submitted quotations by the solicitations closing date. Also as relevant to this decision, the solicitation did not include past performance as an evaluation factor, and it stated that he Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions. Id. Reference: FDA / Hospital Bed System Dimensional and Assessment Guidance to Reduce Entrapment The ICU Bed must meet national safety standards regarding interface of both patient and caregiver, with particular attention to FDA side rail and entrapment issues. The ICU bed shall be capable of descending to 19 from floor for easy egress, chair egress, rendelenbur and reverse rendelenburg with angle indicator The solicitation listed a number of specification requirements for the beds, including, as relevant to this decision, the following: The solicitation stated that award would be made based on the lowest price offer that conforms to the solicitation. RFQ at 15.

RFQ at 1, 5 Contracting Officers Statement at 1. The solicitation, which was issued on an unrestricted basis on Septempursuant to General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule procedures, requested quotations for 58 critical care beds to be delivered to four VA medical centers in North Carolina and Virginia. We grant the request in part and deny it in part. Sizewise Rentals, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest against the issuance of a purchase order to Hill-Rom Company, Inc., of Batesville, Indiana, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No.

Sizewise rentals