A&T Systems, Inc.

B-410767 Feb 10, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A&T Systems, Inc., of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the award of an order to Verizon Wireless, of Basking Ridge, New Jersey, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for task execution plans (RTEP) No. RTEP-0024, TAC-15-18048, to provide uninterrupted recurring air-time services for numerous devices serviced by the VA's Region 2, Area 1, service delivery points. A&T argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the stated evaluation criteria, evaluated proposals unequally, and rendered a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: A&T Systems, Inc. File: B-410767 Date: February 10, 2015 Mark G. Jackson, Esq., and Stowell B. Holcomb, Esq., Jackson Rosenfield LLP, for the protester. Christopher S. Tiroff, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s best-value award decision is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that the proposals were essentially technically equal, and the awardee was the lowest-priced offeror. DECISION A&T Systems, Inc., of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the award of an order to Verizon Wireless, of Basking Ridge, New Jersey, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for task execution plans (RTEP) No. RTEP-0024, TAC-15-18048, to provide uninterrupted recurring air-time services for numerous devices serviced by the VA’s Region 2, Area 1, service delivery points.[1] A&T argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the stated evaluation criteria, evaluated proposals unequally, and rendered a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RTEP, issued on September 10, 2014, under the National Mobile Devices and Services multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract,[2] sought proposals for uninterrupted wireless recurring air-time services comprised of voice, data, and feature add-ons to agency employees throughout the VA Office of Information and Technology, Region 2, Area 1. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1. The RTEP contemplated the award of a fixed-price order consisting of a 12‑month base period, two 12-month option periods, and one 8-month option period. Id. at 9. Best-value tradeoff procedures were to be used, considering technical, past performance and price factors. RTEP at 3. The technical factor was significantly more important than price, which was significantly more important than the past performance factor. Id. The non-price factors, when combined, were to be significantly more important than price. Id. Proposals were to be evaluated under the technical factor for understanding of the problem and feasibility of approach. Id. at 4. Part of that evaluation was to include consideration of an offeror’s approach to provide reliable service coverage, as defined by the RTEP, in and around 254 facilities listed in Appendix A of the RTEP. Id. at 7; Appendix A. Offerors were required to provide coverage to all of the major medical centers (MMC) and at least 90 percent of the remaining facilities listed in Appendix A. Id. Two proposals were received in response to the RTEP, one from A&T and one from Verizon. After an initial evaluation, the VA set a competitive range and entered into discussions with both offerors. Agency Report (AR), exh. 9, Competitive Range Determination, at 2. After the conclusion of discussions, the agency received and evaluated final revised proposals. Both firms’ proposals were rated “good” under the technical factor and “low risk” under the past performance factor. AR, exh. 17, SSDD, at 2. A&T proposed a total evaluated price of $13,957,564, whereas Verizon proposed a price of $13,430,233. Id. A&T’s technical rating of “good” was based on the assignment of a significant strength for providing reliable service coverage to 100 percent of the service delivery points (SDP) and for proposing to use existing infrastructure at each of the MMCs by keeping the devices under the current carrier. AR, exh. 15, A&T Final Technical Evaluation, at 1. A&T’s proposal also received two strengths under the technical factor for proposing to use its [DELETED] software to assist the agency with managing the task order, and for demonstrating a clear understanding of the critical nature of transition and providing extensive detail in its proposal. Id.