Virtual Medical Group, LLC (36C24519Q0425)

B-418386 Mar 25, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Virtual Medical Group, LLC (Virtual), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24519Q0425, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for medical transcription services for the Beckley VA Medical Center. Virtual contends that the cancellation of the solicitation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Virtual Medical Group, LLC File:  B-418386 Date:  March 25, 2020 Matthew P. Banks for the protester. Tyler W. Brown, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s corrective action is denied where, after an agency-level protest, the record reflects that the agency identified flaws in the evaluation and solicitation that warranted cancelling the solicitation and issuing a revised solicitation.  DECISION Virtual Medical Group, LLC (Virtual), a service‑disabled veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB) of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24519Q0425, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for medical transcription services for the Beckley VA Medical Center.  Virtual contends that the cancellation of the solicitation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The VA issued the RFQ on July 3, 2019, as a set‑aside for SDVOSBs, under the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ, at 1; id., Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The agency sought quotations for medical transcription services for digital dictation, traditional medical transcription and correction editing services.  RFQ at 4.  The RFQ was publicized on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, which, at the time, was designated as the single, governmentwide point of entry (GPE).[1]  COS at 1.  However, the RFQ also stated that the “terms and conditions of the contractor’s [Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)] contract . . . apply.”  RFQ at 24.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed‑price contract with a base period of 1 year, and four 1‑year options.  Id. at 6, 21-23.  The agency was to evaluate quotations on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis.  Id. at 51.  Tradeoffs would not be permitted, and quotations would be evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using non‑price factors.  Id.  To be rated acceptable, quotations needed to clearly meet the solicitation’s minimum requirements.  Id. at 52.  Quotations that did not meet the solicitation’s minimum requirements would be rated unacceptable and excluded from award consideration.  Id. at 51-52.  Quotations were due by July 17.  Id. at 1. The VA received six quotations in response to the RFQ, including one from Virtual.  COS at 1.  On July 18, the contract specialist contacted Virtual and requested clarification of its quotation concerning pricing; this was the only quotation on which the VA sought clarification.  Id.; see also Protest, Encl. 2, Email from VA to Virtual, Jul. 18, 2019.  On August 5, Virtual submitted a revised quotation including an updated price.  COS at 1; see also Protest, Encl. 2, Email from Virtual to VA, Aug. 5, 2019.  After evaluating quotations, the VA concluded that Alpha4 Solutions LLC (Alpha4) submitted the highest‑rated, lowest-priced quotation; Virtual was found technically acceptable and submitted the fourth lowest price.  COS at 1; AR, Tab 5, Abstract of Quotations; see also Protest, Encl. 4, Post-Award Notice.  On November 3, the VA notified Virtual that award had been made to Alpha4 for a total price of $166,478.  Protest, Encl. 4, Post‑Award Notice.  On November 7, Virtual filed an agency-level protest asserting two primary arguments:  (1) award to Alpha4 was improper because the agency misevaluated quotations; and (2) the agency provided Virtual with an inadequate debriefing.  Protest, Encl. 7, Agency‑Level Protest, at 1, 3-6.  According to Virtual, the award price of $166,478 could not have been the awardee’s total price for the base period plus all option periods; Virtual contended that such a price could only cover the base period.  Id. at 3.  Virtual argued that its quotation was technically acceptable and included a base period price less than $166,478, and therefore Virtual, not Alpha4, submitted the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable quotation.