SBC Federal Systems, B-283693; B-283693.2, December 27, 1999

SBC Federal Systems, B-283693; B-283693.2, December 27, 1999 TITLE: SBC Federal Systems, B-283693; B-283693.2, December 27, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283693; B-283693.2 DATE: December 27, 1999 ********************************************************************** SBC Federal Systems, B-283693; B-283693.2, December 27, 1999 Decision Matter of: SBC Federal Systems File: B-283693; B-283693.2 Date: December 27, 1999 James J. Regan, Esq., John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., and Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for the protester. Judith Ward Mattox, Esq., for TennMark Telecommunications, Inc., an intervenor. Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., and Dennis Foley, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Although contracting agency may have improperly performed a price/technical tradeoff between proposals in violation of the solicitation's evaluation scheme, the protester was not prejudiced by the improper tradeoff decision where the record shows that agency reasonably concluded that protester's proposal was technically unacceptable. DECISION SBC Federal Systems protests the issuance of a task order to TennMark Telecommunications, Inc. by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), made pursuant to a task order proposal request, No. VHA-014(VISN 18), issued to all Nortel Authorized General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule representatives listed on GSA Schedule No. GS-35F-1130D. The agency is purchasing replacement telephone systems for VA Medical Centers in Big Spring, Texas, and Prescott, Arizona. SBC argues that the agency improperly conducted a price/technical tradeoff between its and Tennmark's proposals in violation of the task order request's stated evaluation scheme. We deny the protest. As discussed in greater detail below, this protest turns ultimately on prejudice. The solicitation here did not anticipate an evaluation of the relative technical merits of the systems offered, as the VA is purchasing commercially-available Nortel telephone systems from the GSA schedule. Nevertheless, the record shows that the contracting officer permitted the users of the system to perform a price/technical tradeoff. Thus, the protester contends that the VA violated the solicitation's stated evaluation scheme, and that award should have been made to SBC based on its lower-priced, technically acceptable proposal. The agency responds that even if it did perform a price/technical tradeoff that considered relative technical merit, the protester was not prejudiced because its proposal was technically unacceptable and could not have been selected under this solicitation. Thus, the agency argues that any price/technical tradeoff performed is irrelevant to the outcome of this protest. BACKGROUND The task order request here was issued on May 27, 1999, and was distributed to contractors identified on GSA Schedule No. GS-35F-1130D as distributors of Nortel telephone systems. The solicitation advised that the VA was seeking complete digital and voice telephone systems for the two Medical Centers identified above, as well as a public address (PA) system for each Medical Center. The solicitation advised potential offerors that the agency would select the proposal which was most advantageous to the government; it also stated that the evaluation factors would be past performance and price, and that the two factors were approximately equal in weight. Solicitation at 69-70. The solicitation also identified five past performance subfactors that are not at issue in this protest. Although there was no technical evaluation factor, the solicitation advised offerors that [t]echnical proposals must meet all mandatory requirements in the Scope and Statement of Work. Proposals that fail to meet all of the mandatory requirements will not be considered. Solicitation at 70. Also, although the solicitation did not identify for offerors which requirements were "mandatory" (and which presumably were not), it did require that proposals specifically address each of the numbered paragraphs in the statement of work to permit the evaluation team to assess whether or not the requirement was met. Solicitation at 64. By the due date for receipt of proposals, the VA received offers from SBC and TennMark. SBC offered a Nortel product known as Option 61C for $[deleted]; TennMark offered a Nortel product known as Option 81C for $3.5 million. Award Statement, undated, at 1. In two areas of SBC's proposal, the company took direct issue with requirements of the solicitation--i.e., the requirement for a warranty for voltage fluctuations and lightning, and the requirement for a 48- or 70-volt PA system. The VA's final evaluation, in essence, concluded that SBC's proposal was unacceptable with respect to its warranty, and with respect to its 24-volt PA system.