FreeAlliance.com, LLC

B-414531 Jun 19, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights FreeAlliance.com, LLC, of Washington, D.C., protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912CN-16-R-0026, issued to acquire information technology (IT) and visual information (VI) services. The protester argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal and improperly found it ineligible for award. 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:  FreeAlliance.com, LLC File:  B-414531 Date:  June 19, 2017 Steven J. Koprince, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., and Candace M. Shields, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. CPT Meghan E. Mahaney, Esq., and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where record shows the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, as well as applicable statutes and regulations.  DECISION FreeAlliance.com, LLC, of Washington, D.C., protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912CN-16-R-0026, issued to acquire information technology (IT) and visual information (VI) services.  The protester argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal and improperly found it ineligible for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 30, 2016, as a competitive 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 6-month base period, with one 6-month option period and two 1-year option periods, for IT and VI services at the Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC) in Oahu, Hawaii.  RFP at 1, 123.  Award was to be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal.  RFP at 137.  Proposals were to be evaluated under three factors:  technical capability, past performance, and price.  RFP at 138.  The technical capability factor was further divided into three subfactors:  (1) understanding and compliance with requirements; (2) certification; and (3) management and staffing plan.  Relevant here, under subfactor 1, understanding and compliance with requirements, proposals were required to “address each work area in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding” of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).  RFP at 138 (emphasis added).  The RFP also noted that, in evaluating proposals, the agency would assess whether theproposal described “a sound technical approach” as to “how the offeror will fulfill each requirement in the PWS.”  Id. (emphasis added). As relevant here, PWS § 3.4.2 required offerors to provide a lead audiovisual (AV)/VI technician who would supervise AV/VI technicians.  PWS § 3.4.2, at 28-29.  The section listed six work areas for the lead technician to complete or supervise:  (1) maintain a directory of link and alternate site videoteleconference (VTC) rooms; (2) provide VTC scheduling, coordination, troubleshooting, and presentation, as well as install equipment when required; (3) perform equipment surveys for all TAMC VTC equipment and update the TAMC VTC directory (4) ensure equipment in all TAMC VTC rooms are in operational order; (5) ensure the provision of VTC services outside of core hours; and (6) create and maintain standard operating procedures documentation.  Id. Also relevant here, PWS § 3.5.1 sought administrative support in processing IT equipment for disposal.  The section listed five work areas:  (1) provide technical and administrative support for processing government-determined excess IT equipment, including its tracking and disposal; (2) input data for tracking tools; (3) prepare documentation for excess equipment disposition; (4) provide monthly reports of IT equipment store in the warehouse; and (5) assist with the TAMC end user device program.  PWS § 3.5.1, at 31-32. Under the non-price factors and subfactors, proposals were to be rated acceptable, unacceptable, or neutral.  RFP at 138.  A rating of “unacceptable” under any factor, or subfactor, would render the proposal ineligible for award.  Id.  The RFP defined “unacceptable” as the “[p]roposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.  The Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.”  Id.