Veterans Electric, LLC

B-413198 Aug 26, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Veterans Electric, LLC, of Colgate, Wisconsin, protests the award of a contract to Architectural Consulting Group, Inc. (ACG), of Chicago, Illinois, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA786-16-Q-0129 for electrical services at the agency's Wood National Cemetery in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Veterans Electric argues that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal. 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:  Veterans Electric, LLC File:  B-413198 Date:  August 26, 2016 Daniel McAuliffe, Esq., and Joseph A. Whitcomb, Esq., Whitcomb, Selinsky, McAuliffe PC, for the protester. Benjamin M. Diliberto, Esq., Stacey North-Willis, Esq., and Charlma Quarles, 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 that the agency unreasonably found the awardee’s proposal to be technically acceptable in a lowest-priced, technically acceptable best value procurement is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Veterans Electric, LLC, of Colgate, Wisconsin, protests the award of a contract to Architectural Consulting Group, Inc. (ACG), of Chicago, Illinois, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA786-16-Q-0129 for electrical services at the agency’s Wood National Cemetery in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Veterans Electric argues that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on March 1, 2016, sought proposals for construction services to upgrade existing electrical service to the monument circle lighting circuit.  RFP at 6.  The requirement was set aside for service disabled veteran-owned small businesses under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 238210, with a size standard of $15 million.  Id. at 1.  Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically-acceptable basis considering technical qualifications, past performance and price.  Id. at 11.  With respect to the technical qualifications factor, the RFP stated, “[t]echnical capability will be evaluated to determine the extent to which [the proposal] demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in performance of the requirements identified in the [statement of work].”  Id.  Offerors were instructed to not simply restate the requirements, but to describe, “in detail, how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements.”  Id.  The factor also gave an illustrative list of five technical qualifications:  experience performing this type of work, qualifications of technical/key personnel, sufficiency of personnel/equipment, performance plan, and overall technical acceptability.  Id. Two proposals were received, one from Veterans Electric, and the other from ACG.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2.  Both were evaluated as technically acceptable.  Id.  ACG’s evaluated price was $13,400, whereas Veterans Electric submitted a price of $19,250.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 7, Basis of Award at 2.  ACG’s proposal was selected as the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable offer.  After a debriefing, Veterans Electric filed an agency-level protest, which was denied.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION Veterans Electric argues that the agency unreasonably found ACG’s proposal to be technically acceptable.  According to the protester, ACG’s proposal did not conform to the requirements of the solicitation and ACG was not registered as performing work under the relevant NAICS code.  Comments at 1-4.  A review of the record shows that the protest is without merit. The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter within the agency’s discretion.  Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., B-400614.3, Feb. 10, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 50 at 4.  In reviewing a protest against an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office will not reevaluate proposals, but instead will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  Triple Canopy, Inc., B-310566.4, Oct.