Vista Technical Services, LLC

B-413366 Oct 03, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Vista Technical Services, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Bowhead Professional Solutions, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-15-R-5000, issued by the Department of the Army for software application development and maintenance services. Vista alleges that the agency should have rejected the proposal of Bowhead as unacceptable. 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:  Vista Technical Services, LLC File:  B-413366 Date:  October 3, 2016 S. Lane Tucker, Esq., Stoel Rives LLP, for the protester. Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Gordon Griffin, Esq., and Leila George-Wheeler, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for Bowhead Professional Solutions, LLC, an intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Brian A. Tuftee, Esq, Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency should have rejected awardee’s proposal as noncompliant with the solicitation because it did not offer a particular number of staff hours is denied; solicitation required each offeror to propose its own staffing plan and estimated level of effort, and did not require proposal of a particular number of staff hours. DECISION Vista Technical Services, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Bowhead Professional Solutions, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-15-R-5000, issued by the Department of the Army for software application development and maintenance services.  Vista alleges that the agency should have rejected the proposal of Bowhead as unacceptable. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplates the award of a labor-hours type contract for a base year and four 1-year options to provide software application development and maintenance services on an as-needed basis.  Firms were advised that the agency would make award on a best-value basis, considering price, and two non-price factors, technical (deemed significantly more important than price) and past performance (deemed slightly more important than price).  RFP Attachment 10, Evaluation Factors, at 1.  The RFP also provided that the technical and past performance factors collectively were deemed significantly more important than price, but advised firms that price could become the controlling consideration in the event that proposals were deemed relatively equal under the non-price factors.  Id. The record shows that the agency received a number of proposals in response to the solicitation, and that Vista and Bowhead were found essentially equal under the non-price factors; the remaining offerors were found technically unacceptable.  Agency Report (AR) exh. 25, Source Selection Decision Document, at 8.  The record further shows that, because Vista and Bowhead were found essentially equal under the non-price factors, the agency made its selection decision based on low price.  The agency made award to Bowhead at a price of $10,581,390, compared to Vista’s price of $11,546,108.  Id. at 9.  After being advised of the agency’s source selection decision and requesting and receiving a debriefing, Vista filed this protest. PROTEST Vista alleges that the agency should have rejected the Bowhead proposal as unacceptable because the firm did not propose in accordance with the requirements of the RFP.[1]  According to the protester, the RFP required all offerors to propose staffing that was equal to 38,400 staff hours per year for each year of the contract.  Vista maintains that, because Bowhead’s proposal was based on a level of effort different than that allegedly required by the RFP, the agency erred in making award to Bowhead.  The agency, on the other hand, takes the position that the RFP did not require offerors to propose any particular level of effort. We find no merit to the protest.  Vista’s argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the RFP’s requirements.  In this connection, where there is disagreement regarding the meaning of a solicitation, we resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all its provisions; to be reasonable, an interpretation of a solicitation must be consistent with such a reading.  One Largo Metro LLC; Metroview Dev.