Joerns Healthcare, LLC (B-423455.2, B-423455.3, B-423455.4)

You should not care.

Category: Technical specifications, physical inspection

Date: 9 September 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423455.2%2Cb-423455.3%2Cb-423455.4

Joerns Healthcare, LLC, protested its exclusion from the competitive range under a VA procurement for in‑home hospital beds and accessories. The RFP set out 26 minimum technical requirements (MTRs) and used a two‑phase process: paper literature review followed by physical inspection of sample beds. Joerns argued the agency should interpret bed dimensions using “nominal,” not actual, measurements consistent with commercial and building‑code practice.

Literal MTRs vs. industry practice: GAO found the solicitation unambiguously required actual compliance with specified widths (80x36 inches for basic frames, adjustable up to at least 42 inches for advanced frames) and expressly called for tape‑measure verification. Industry usage of nominal sizes could not override those material terms.

Physical inspection and deficiencies: VA measured Joerns’s basic bed at 34.5 inches wide and its advanced bed adjustable only to 41.5 inches, both short of the stated minima. Because any failure against the MTRs rendered a proposal nonresponsive, the agency reasonably eliminated Joerns, regardless of earlier phase‑I acceptance.

Disparate‑treatment claim rejected: Joerns alleged the agency held competitor DiSorb Systems to a looser “nominal” standard. GAO reviewed DiSorb’s literature and phase‑II measurements and found its beds met the stated widths; differences in ratings reflected real differences in the products.

Digest

Joerns Healthcare, LLC, a small business of Charlotte, North Carolina, protests its exclusion from the competitive range after submitting a proposal in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10G25R0011, issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration, for in-home hospital beds and accessories.

The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Joerns's proposal as unacceptable and applied a disparate evaluation standard when eliminating Joerns from the competition.

The protester further argues that the agency unreasonably assigned various weaknesses to Joerns's proposal.