Williams Communications Solutions, LLC, B-283900, January 18, 2000

B-283900 Jan 18, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against agency determination that protester's proposal was technically noncompliant is denied where it is based on protester's unreasonable interpretation of solicitation requirements. 2. Protest alleging that discussions were not meaningful is denied where record reflects that agency led protester into the area of its proposal in need of revision. The task order is for the upgrade of a telephone system at the VA Medical Center in Philadelphia. Williams argues that its proposal was improperly determined to be technically unacceptable. The proposal request was released on July 30. Paragraph 2.17 of the request provided that the government would award a task order to the offeror whose offer conforming to the requirements of the proposal request was determined to be most advantageous to the government. View Decision Matter of: Williams Communications Solutions, LLC File: B-283900 Date: January 18, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Williams Communications Solutions, LLC protests the issuance of a task order to TennMark Telecommunications, Inc. by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), under task order proposal request No. VHA-020(642), issued to all Nortel Authorized General Services Administration (GSA) schedule representatives listed on GSA schedule No. GS-35F-1130D. The task order is for the upgrade of a telephone system at the VA Medical Center in Philadelphia. Williams argues that its proposal was improperly determined to be technically unacceptable, that the VA failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and that the VA improperly waived certain material requirements for the benefit of the awardee. We deny the protest. The proposal request was released on July 30, 1999, as a competitive Nortel GSA schedule procurement. Paragraph 2.17 of the request provided that the government would award a task order to the offeror whose offer conforming to the requirements of the proposal request was determined to be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The other factor set forth in paragraph 2.17 was past performance. That paragraph further provided that proposals that failed to meet all of the mandatory requirements of the statement of work (SOW) would not be considered. Amendments Nos. 1 through 3 modified various elements of the SOW and amendment No. 4 extended the proposal response date to September 15. Three proposals were received, including those from Williams and TennMark. Technical proposals were reviewed by the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) and the chief information officer (CIO) in Philadelphia. The contracting officer evaluated price proposals. On September 28, the VA issued letters to each offeror detailing technical deficiencies found by the COTR and the CIO, requesting price clarifications and establishing 12 noon on September 29 as the deadline for receipt of responses. Final responses were forwarded to the COTR and the CIO on September 29 for review, and a second price analysis was performed. On September 30, Williams' proposal, with an evaluated price of $ [deleted] (Agency Report, exh. 20), was found to be technically noncompliant in two areas because it proposed an insufficient number of power failure transfer units (PFTUs) and an insufficient number of paging microphones and consoles. Agency Report, exh. 22. TennMark's proposal, with an evaluated price of $ 2,613,836.47 (Agency Report, exh. 20), was found to be technically compliant in all respects, and was selected for the issuance of the task order. Agency Report, exh. 22. Williams was notified of TennMark's selection on October 4; the firm was provided with a written debriefing on October 7 and this protest followed on October 12, in which Williams challenges the VA's evaluation of both proposals. Williams first alleges that the evaluation of its technical proposal as failing to provide a sufficient number of PFTUs and paging microphone and consoles is incorrect. Further, Williams argues that these requirements were not identified as "mandatory" and, therefore, failure to satisfy them could not constitute a basis for rejection of its proposal under paragraph 2.17 of the proposal request. Williams also maintains that the requirements are not material and, therefore, any failure to meet them should have been waived by the VA. Finally, Williams alleges the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions concerning the perceived weaknesses in its technical proposal. EVALUATION In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency evaluation, it is not the function of our Office to independently evaluate proposals and we will, therefore, not disturb the agency's conclusion unless it is shown to be unreasonable. The record must establish that the evaluation is unreasonable and the mere fact that a protester disagrees with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable.