VetsTec, LLC

B-418164 Nov 07, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights VetsTec, LLC, of Franklin, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to B3 Group, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B19R0009, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for an enterprise telecommunications expense management solution. VetsTec argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and made a flawed award decision. We dismiss the protest because VetsTec is not an interested party to challenge the award. 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:  VetsTec, LLC File:  B-418164 Date:  November 7, 2019 Thomas K. David, Esq., Kenneth Brody, Esq., and Katherine A. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for the protester. Laurel Hockey, Esq., David S. Cohen, Esq., Norah D. Molnar, Esq., Daniel Strouse, Esq., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for B3 Group, Inc., the intervenor. Colin Nash, Esq., and John W. Tangalos, 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 is dismissed where the protester is not an interested party to challenge the procurement. DECISION VetsTec, LLC, of Franklin, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to B3 Group, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B19R0009, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for an enterprise telecommunications expense management solution.  VetsTec argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and made a flawed award decision. We dismiss the protest because VetsTec is not an interested party to challenge the award. The RFP, issued on May 13, 2019, contemplated the award of a contract for an enterprise Telecommunications Expense Management Solution to provide asset and service inventory for the VA.  Request for Dismissal, exh. A, RFP, at 1, 67-68.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and non-price factors.  Id. at 186.  The non-price factors were technical, past performance, and veteran’s involvement.[1]  Id.  Relevant here, under the technical factor, offerors were required to provide a draft Concept of Operations (CONOPS) that reflected how the offeror’s proposed solution would function within the VA environment.  Id. at 191. The RFP stated that in order to receive consideration for award, proposals could not receive a rating of lower than “acceptable” for the technical factor.[2]  RFP at 186-187.  The solicitation also explained that if a proposal failed to meet the RFP’s minimum requirements, it will be rated “unacceptable,” making the proposal ineligible for award.  Id. at 187.  On June 9, the protester submitted its proposal in response to the RFP.  Subsequently, on June 19, the agency issued amendment 0004 to the RFP to clarify aspects of the RFP, including the technical volume page limitations.  Request for Dismissal, exh. C, amend. 0004,at 1.  The amendment stated, in relevant part: The page limit for Volume I is 40 pages.  Volume I shall be submitted in PDF format as indicated in the solicitation.  All pages submitted within Volume I including but not limited to cover page / title page, cover letter, table of contents, annexes, documentation, attachments or the like, etc., not specifically required by this solicitation will be counted toward the 40 page limit.  The page count will be determined by counting the pages in the order they come up in the print layout view.  All Offerors are reminded that in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, pages which exceed the total page limit for a particular volume will not be evaluated. Id. (emphasis added). The amendment expressly provided offerors the opportunity to submit a revised proposal, in light of the amendment’s clarification, and indicated that the due date for the submission of revised proposals was June 24.  Id.  On that date, VetsTec acknowledged the amendment but declined to submit a revised proposal, requesting that its originally submitted proposal be evaluated.  Request for Dismissal, exh. E, Email from VetsTec, June 24, 2019, at 1 (“VetsTec requests that our original proposal submitted June 9, 2019 be evaluated.  We are not submitting a revised proposal.”). The agency evaluated proposals submitted in response to the RFP and assigned VetsTec’s proposal two deficiencies.  Request for Dismissal, exh. F, VetsTec Technical Evaluation Report.  The agency found that VetsTec’s proposal failed to provide an “E-Bonding” integration framework capability and failed to include the draft CONOPS.  Request for Dismissal, exh.