Avar Consulting, Inc. (1625DC-17-R-00003)

B-417668.3,B-417668.4,B-417668.5 Jun 10, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Avar Consulting, Inc., a small business located in Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of three contracts to TelaForce, LLC, a small business located in Niceville, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1625DC-17-R-00003, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for employment data collection and processing services. The protester argues that the agency improperly revived TelaForce's extinguished proposal, engaged in unequal discussions, unreasonably evaluated past performance and experience, and overlooked material misrepresentations in the awardee's proposal. 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:  Avar Consulting, Inc. File:  B-417668.3; B-417668.4; B-417668.5 Date:  June 10, 2020 Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Stephen L. Bacon, Esq., Deborah N. Rodin, Esq., and Eleanor M. Ross, Esq., Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, PC, for the protester. Erin M. Estevez, Esq., and Pablo A. Nichols, Esq., Cooley LLP, for TelaForce, LLC, the intervenor. Jose Otero, Esq., and Virginia Ackerman, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s award of a contract based on a proposal that the offeror subsequently revised is denied where the agency revived prior proposals in an even-handed manner that did not prejudice the competitive system. 2.  Protest alleging that awardee’s proposal contained material misrepresentations is denied where the statements did not rise to the level of misrepresentations and where the alleged misrepresentations were not relied upon in the agency’s evaluation. 3.  Protest challenging past performance evaluation is denied where the agency reasonably evaluated the awardee’s past performance in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Avar Consulting, Inc., a small business located in Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of three contracts to TelaForce, LLC, a small business located in Niceville, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1625DC-17-R-00003, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for employment data collection and processing services.  The protester argues that the agency improperly revived TelaForce’s extinguished proposal, engaged in unequal discussions, unreasonably evaluated past performance and experience, and overlooked material misrepresentations in the awardee’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 26, 2017, DOL issued the RFP seeking the award of three contracts for data collection and processing services for the job opening and labor turnover survey data collection center (JOLTS), the current employment statistics data collection center (CES), and the electronic data interchange center (EDI) respectively.  The solicitation anticipated that the agency would award three hybrid fixed-price/labor-hour contracts with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 61.[1]  For each contract, the RFP contemplated the evaluation of three factors, in descending order of importance:  technical capability, past performance, and price.  Id. at 75.  While the non-price factors when combined were more important than price, the solicitation cautioned that DOL would not award the contracts at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior technical features.  Id.  For the evaluation of technical capability, the agency anticipated evaluating four subfactors for each contract:  experience, management plan, quality control plan, and phase-in plan.  Id. at 76-80.  The solicitation permitted offerors to identify the same experience for both CES and JOLTS as DOL considered these requirements “similar in nature.”  Id. at 68.  For the evaluation of past performance, the RFP required offerors to identify three references for each project; offerors were again permitted to identify the same references for the CES and JOLTS requirements.  Id. at 71.  Offerors intending to subcontract any portion of the requirement were to provide two references for each subcontractor.  Id. at 72. The solicitation contemplated a multiple phase process for awarding the contracts for the three data centers.  Id.