Utech, Inc- dba EndoSoft

B-418060 Dec 20, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Utech Products, Inc., dba EndoSoft, LLC, of Schenectady, New York, protests the award of a contract to Provation Medical, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25019Q0191, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for an endoscopy software solution. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its offer. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Utech Products, dba EndoSoft LLC File:  B-418060 Date:  December 20, 2019 Abhishek Bajaj, EndoSoft LLC, for the protester. Christine Longe, Esq., Provation Medical, Inc., for the intervenor. Lisa C. House, Esq., and Tyler W. Brown, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s offer is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION Utech Products, Inc., dba EndoSoft, LLC, of Schenectady, New York, protests the award of a contract to Provation Medical, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25019Q0191, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for an endoscopy software solution.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its offer. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on February 1, 2019, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13, contemplated the award of a contract, for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, for the implementation of a replacement endoscopy software solution for the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 1.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three factors:  technical capability, past performance, and price.  RFQ at 64-67.  The non-price factors, when combined, were deemed more important than price.  Id. at 67. The solicitation utilized a tiered, or “cascading,” evaluation approach, where the agency solicited offers on an unrestricted basis, but would evaluate offers received in the following tier order:  (1) service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses;  (2) veteran-owned small businesses; (3) all other small business concerns; and (4) other than small business.  RFQ at 64; AR, Tab 4, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 1.   The agency initially received three offers in response to the solicitation, including from Endosoft and Provation.  AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  After a review of initial offers, the VA allowed offerors to submit revised offers.  Id.  Only Endosoft and Provation submitted revised offers.  Id. In accordance with the solicitation’s tiered evaluation approach, the agency first evaluated Endosoft’s offer, as Endosoft is a small business concern and Provation is a large business.  AR, Tab 4, SSDD at 2, 8.  The agency found that Endosoft’s technical approach contained several “[s]ignificant weaknesses and/or deficiencies.”[2]  Id.  Thus, the agency assigned the protester’s offer an unsatisfactory rating, explaining that the risk associated with the offer’s technical approach was unacceptable.  AR, Tab 4, SSDD, at 6.  The VA then evaluated Provation’s offer.  AR, Tab 4, SSDD at 10-12.  The agency found Provation’s offer technically acceptable and made award to the firm for $891,340.  Id.  After receiving notice that award had been made to Provation, Endosoft filed an agency-level protest.  COS at 1.  The agency denied Endosoft’s agency-level protest and this protest to our Office followed. DISCUSSION  Endosoft challenges each instance where the agency found that Endosoft’s offer failed to address the requirements of the solicitation.  We have considered all of Endosoft’s arguments and find that none provide a basis to sustain its protest.  We address two of Endosoft’s allegations below for illustrative purposes.  We note at the outset that, when reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s technical evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate offers; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations.  See ManTech Advanced Sys. Int’l, Inc., B-413717, Dec. 16, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 370 at 3. The technical capability factor delineated (and numbered) 23 separate technical requirements.  RFQ at 64-66.  The VA found that Endosoft’s offer failed to adequately address five of the 23 technical requirements.