PatriotVetIT, LLC

B-412188.2 Mar 23, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PatriotVetIT, LLC, a service-disabled, veteran-owned, small business, of Sarasota, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Dockside Imaging, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA263-15-R-0451, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services. PatriotVetIT argues that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal and past performance. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  PatriotVetIT, LLC File:  B-412188.2 Date:  March 23, 2016 Leonard Hawrilenko for the protester. Paul K. Petraborg, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal and selection of higher-priced, higher technically rated proposal is denied where evaluation and selection were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria. DECISION PatriotVetIT, LLC, a service-disabled, veteran‑owned, small business, of Sarasota, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Dockside Imaging, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA263-15-R-0451, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services.  PatriotVetIT argues that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal and past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 3, 2015, as a service-disabled, veteran-owned, small business set-aside, sought proposals for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for mobile MRI services.  RFP at 1, 57, and 61.  The RFP set out three factors for award:  (1) technical capability; (2) past performance, and (3) price.  Id. at 57.  Award was to be made to the offeror that submitted the proposal deemed to present the best value.  Id. at 58.  The RFP instructed offerors to provide sufficient detail in their proposals to allow for the evaluation of technical capability.  Id. at 57.  With regard to past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to demonstrate experience with their offered product, and advised that such experience performed at VA facilities was preferred.  Id. The agency received six proposals by the RFP’s September 1 closing date.  PatriotVetIT’s proposal, priced at $2,488,320, received a “Borderline” rating for technical capability and a “Neutral” rating for past performance.  Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 2.  Dockside, the incumbent contractor, submitted a proposal priced at $2,964,600, which received a “Superior” rating for technical capability and an “Acceptable” rating for past performance.  Id.  Concluding that the technical superiority of the Dockside proposal was worth the associated price premium, the contracting officer awarded the contract to that firm.  The agency, however, cancelled that award as a consequence of a protest filed by PatriotVetIT, re‑evaluated the protester’s proposal, and affirmed the selection decision, which resulted in a new award to Dockside.[1]  This protest followed.  DISCUSSION PatriotVetIT challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal, arguing that its proposed MRI equipment is “state of the art” and superior to the one proposed by Dockside.  Protest at 1-3.  The protester also challenges its “Neutral” rating, arguing that its past performance is in fact “exemplary.” Protest at 2.  In reviewing a protest against the propriety of an evaluation, it is not our function to independently evaluate proposals and substitute our judgment for that of the contracting activity.  Barents Group, L.L.C., B-276082, B-276082.2, May 9, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 164 at 6.  Rather, we will review an evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations; a protester’s disagreement with the evaluation does not show it lacked a reasonable basis.  Id. An offeror has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the merits of its proposal and risks lower evaluation ratings, or proposal rejection, if it fails to do so.  See HDL Research Lab, Inc., B‑294959, Dec. 21, 2004, 2005 CPD ¶ 8 at 5.  No matter how competent a vendor may be, the technical evaluation of its proposal must be based on the information included in the firm’s proposal.  See Watson Indus., Inc., B‑238309, Apr.