Nextira Federal, LLC, B-290820; B-290820.2, October 4, 2002

Nextira Federal, LLC, B-290820; B-290820.2, October 4, 2002 TITLE: Nextira Federal, LLC, B-290820; B-290820.2, October 4, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290820; B-290820.2 DATE: October 4, 2002 ********************************************************************** Nextira Federal, LLC, B-290820; B-290820.2, October 4, 2002 Decision Matter of: Nextira Federal, LLC File: B-290820; B-290820.2 Date: October 4, 2002 Carl L. Vacketta, Esq., Richard P. Rector, Esq., and David E. Fletcher, Esq., Piper Rudnick, for the protester. Donald M. Sherwin, Esq., for Communications Products, Inc., an intervenor. Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., and Dennis Foley, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a competitive acquisition under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), where the record provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's acceptance of the low-priced FSS vendor's proposal to comply with all solicitation requirements, agency reasonably selected this vendor for the issuance of a task order. DECISION Nextira Federal, LLC protests the selection of Communications Products, Inc. (CPI) under *task order proposal request* (TOPR) No. VHA-040(656/568), issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to replace/enhance telephone systems at VA medical center facilities in, as relevant here, Minnesota (in the city of St. Cloud) and South Dakota (in the cities of Fort Meade, Hot Springs, and Rapid City). Nextira challenges the evaluation of CPI's proposal. We deny the protest. The TOPR was issued on September 10, 2001, to all Nortel-authorized General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) representatives listed on Nortel's GSA schedule contract No. GS-35F-0140L. The TOPR stated that a task order would be issued to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government. The TOPR provided that technical proposals, which were required to meet all statement of work (SOW) requirements, would be evaluated on the basis of past performance and price, which were considered approximately equal in importance. The TOPR advised that vendors submitting a fully compliant technical proposal would enter into discussions with the agency, to include negotiating final pricing and any additional discounts. Four vendors, including Nextira and CPI, submitted initial technical and price proposals by the closing time on November 13. The agency's technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated each firm's technical proposal against the SOW requirements. For each of the vendors, the contracting officer, who evaluated price proposals, provided the TET with a proposed component breakdown (contract line item number (CLIN), item description, and quantities) to review in terms of whether the quantities of proposed components would satisfy the SOW requirements. The TET rated the initial technical proposals of Nextira and CPI as *acceptable as submitted,* noting technical areas in each proposal that needed clarification in order to be in compliance with the SOW requirements. Agency Report (AR), Tab 15, Technical Evaluation Compliance Reports for Nextira and CPI, Dec. 2001 through Jan. 2002.[1] In her price evaluation summary, which showed that CPI's price was significantly higher than Nextira's price, the contracting officer characterized the initial technical proposals of Nextira and CPI as *conditionally acceptable.* AR, Tab 16, Price Evaluation Summary Chart for Initial Proposals, Jan. 30, 2002. By letters dated January 30, 2002, the contracting officer presented Nextira and CPI with lists of technical, component listing, and pricing items requiring *clarification.* AR, Tab 17, Clarification Request Letters to Nextira and CPI. Numerous technical items for both Nextira and CPI were characterized as *non-responsive* to, or *non‑compliant* with, specific SOW requirements. Id. Nextira and CPI subsequently provided responses to the contracting officer's items for clarification; these responses were evaluated by the TET and the contracting officer. By letters dated February 20, the contracting officer requested that Nextira and CPI answer identical questions regarding their respective technical and price proposals; the contracting officer also requested the submission of *best and final offers* (BAFO). AR, Tab 26, BAFO Requests to Nextira and CPI, Feb. 20, 2002. On February 26, Nextira and CPI submitted BAFOs. On February 27, the TET chairperson sent an e-mail to the contracting officer in which he noted that Nextira's BAFO was technically acceptable; the TET chairperson was silent with respect to the acceptability of CPI's BAFO. AR, Tab 35, E-mail from TET Chairperson to Contracting Officer, Feb. 27, 2002, at 1:02 p.m.