Envision Innovative Solutions, Inc.

B-414738.4 Jan 29, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tele-Consultants, Inc. (TCI) of Alpharetta, Georgia, protests its nonselection for award pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-15-R-0008, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command for knowledge based services to support the Army and other federal government agencies. The protester alleges that the agency failed to evaluate its corporate experience and past performance in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria, and that the Army failed to conduct meaningful discussions. 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:  Tele-Consultants, Inc. File:  B-414738.4 Date:  January 29, 2019 James S. DelSordo, Esq., Argus Legal, PLLC, for the protester. Jonathan Hardage Esq., David Balaban, Esq., Cathleen Perry Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Young S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency improperly rejected protester’s proposal is denied where the proposal did not contain information required by the solicitation, and where failure to provide the information resulted in an unacceptable rating under one of the solicitation’s evaluation factors. 2.  Protest alleging that discussions were not meaningful is denied where the agency was under no obligation to advise the protester of newly‑created defects introduced by the protester in its revised proposal.  DECISION Tele-Consultants, Inc. (TCI) of Alpharetta, Georgia, protests its nonselection for award pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-15-R-0008, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command for knowledge based services to support the Army and other federal government agencies.  The protester alleges that the agency failed to evaluate its corporate experience and past performance in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and that the Army failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 25, 2015, the Army issued the RFP for the acquisition of command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance knowledge based support services for the Army and other parts of the Department of Defense.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, RFP at 1, 14.  The RFP anticipated the award of a multiple-award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a five‑year base period and one five‑year option.  Id. at 30.  The RFP contemplated the award of contracts on a best-value tradeoff basis, taking into consideration the following factors:  corporate experience; past performance; and total evaluated cost.  Id. at 129-132.  Corporate experience was to be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.  Id.  Only offerors with acceptable corporate experience ratings would be considered for award, which was to be based on a tradeoff involving the remaining two factors, with past performance being more important than total evaluated cost.  Id.  The RFP provided that contracts could be awarded in two separate phases.  Id. at 130.  During phase 1, only proposals that met certain minimum RFP criteria were eligible for award.[1]  Id.  During phase 2, the government reserved the right to conduct discussions pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15 with those offerors that were not awarded contracts under phase 1.[2]  Id.  Only those offerors that submitted proposals in response to phase 1 of the solicitation were eligible for an award during phase 2, and any revisions to proposals would only be accepted as a result of the Army’s decision to open discussions with an offeror after phase 1.  Id.  There was no predetermined limit to the number of awards that could be made during phase 2.  Id. at 129. On May 6, 2015, TCI submitted a timely proposal in response to the RFP.  Combined Contracting Officer Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 10.  After phase 1 of the solicitation concluded on May 16, 2017, the Army awarded 56 contracts.  COS/MOL at 3; RFP at 7,129.  TCI was not awarded a contract in phase 1.  AR, Tab 44, Phase 1 Compliance Screening, at 7.  The Army entered into discussions with TCI, issuing evaluation notices (EN) on May 16, 2017, to allow TCI to revise its proposal and be considered for award under phase 2.  COS/MOL at 3; AR, Tab 15, TCI Discussion Letter, at 1.  As relevant here, the agency’s EN notified TCI that its initial proposal was rated unacceptable under the RFP’s corporate experience factor, and was also deemed to be non-compliant with regard to the instructions for the submission of past performance information.  AR, Tab 15, TCI Discussion Letter, at 3.  These...