Victory Procurement Services LLC

B-411089 May 12, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Victory Procurement Services, LLC (VPS), of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to Culmen International, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, by the Department of the Navy, U.S. Naval Warfare Center, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68936-14-R-0142 to procure one new or renovated Digital P18MH2 mobile surveillance radar system. VPS argues that since it has the exclusive right to sell the P18MH2 in the United States, the agency erred in finding Culmen's proposal technically acceptable. 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: Victory Procurement Services LLC File: B-411089 Date: May 12, 2015 J. Andrew Watson, III, Esq., Matthew H. Moore, Esq. and Jon D. Levin, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, for the protester. Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., and Julia Di Vito, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Culmen International, LLC , the intervenor. Andre Long, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 technical acceptability of the awardee’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that the proposal was technically acceptable. DECISION Victory Procurement Services, LLC (VPS), of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to Culmen International, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, by the Department of the Navy, U.S. Naval Warfare Center, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68936-14-R-0142 to procure one new or renovated Digital P18MH2 mobile surveillance radar system. VPS argues that since it has the exclusive right to sell the P18MH2 in the United States, the agency erred in finding Culmen’s proposal technically acceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 15, 2014, sought proposals for one new or renovated “like new” Digital P18MH2 Mobile Surveillance radar system, including two newly manufactured or renovated P18MH2 vehicles (one radar equipment vehicle and one antenna vehicle), and associated training and contract data. RFP at 4-6. The provided system was to be complete and operational, meaning that the vehicles delivered were to come equipped with all equipment and kits that are integral to the vehicle’s operating condition. Id. at 6. As part of their proposals, each offeror was required to submit the name of its proposed supplier and country of purchase (Technical Document #1), which was then to be approved by the government prior to submission of technical proposals (Technical Document #2). Id. at 44. Award was to be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. Id. at 45. With respect to the non-price factors, proposals were to be evaluated for both technical and past performance acceptability. Id. A technically acceptable proposal was defined as one that clearly meets the minimum requirements of the statement of work. Id. Acceptable past performance, based on an evaluation of each offeror’s performance record, was found where the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. Id. Two proposals were received in response to the solicitation, one from the awardee, Culmen, and the other from VPS. Agency Report (AR), exhibit (exh.) Q, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 1. Culmen’s proposal identified the name of its proposed supplier and the country of purchase as, “HM Arzenál Elektromechnaikal ZRt” (Arzenál) located in Hungary. AR, exh. E, Culmen Proposal Documents, at email page 2. The agency approved Culmen’s supplier via email dated August 27. Id. Culmen then submitted its technical proposal (Technical Document #2) dated October 22, which confirmed that the firm’s supplier remained valid and accurate, and further identified the source of its system being from [DELETED]. Id. at Proposal page 1. The proposal indicated that the firm’s supplier had “all base systems in their possession . . ., which will be upgraded to a P18MH2 system that meets [all of] the required items detailed within [the RFP]” and indicated that its supplier additionally had the requisite personnel to meet the RFP’s training requirements. Id. VPS’ proposal indicated that the firm would provide the P18MH2 system in new condition supplied by Arzenál. AR, exh. F, VPS Proposal Documents, Proposal at 3. After an initial technical evaluation, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) identified three deficiencies in Culmen’s proposal and one weakness in VPS’ proposal. AR, exh. O, SSEB Memorandum, at 3; see generally exh.