National Capitol Contracting, LLC

B-418402.3 Mar 25, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights National Capitol Contracting, LLC (NCC), a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the award of a contract by the Social Security Administration (SSA), to York Telecom Corporation (Yorktel), of Eatontown, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 28321320R00000009 for video enterprise services integration (VESI) support services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's and the protester's proposals, which resulted in an improper award to the awardee. 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:  National Capitol Contracting, LLC File:  B-418402.3 Date:  March 25, 2021 Lawrence P. Block, Esq., Elizabeth Leavy, Esq., and William T. Kirkwood, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for the protester. Albert B. Krachman, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for York Telecom Corporation, the intervenor. Brandon Dell’Aglio, Esq., Dorothy M. Guy, Esq., Virginia Pizza, Esq., and Deborah Lee, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s award of a contract is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION National Capitol Contracting, LLC (NCC), a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the award of a contract by the Social Security Administration (SSA), to York Telecom Corporation (Yorktel), of Eatontown, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 28321320R00000009 for video enterprise services integration (VESI) support services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s and the protester’s proposals, which resulted in an improper award to the awardee. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND According to the agency, it is progressing towards a virtual environment and intends to use virtual servers to support all or most of its video infrastructure.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, RFP at 97.  To that end, the SSA issued the subject RFP on December 10, 2019, through beta.SAM.gov, as a small business set-aside and in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15.[1]  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3.  The RFP sought VESI support services and video teleconferencing (VTC) hardware, software, maintenance, and other services to support the agency’s transition to a single enterprise solution encompassing multiple VTC technologies.  Id. at 2. The period of performance includes a 5-year base period, two 1-year option periods, and a 6-month option to extend period, for a total of up to seven and half years.  RFP at 89.  The RFP provided that the SSA would award an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the SSA, considering price and other factors.  RFP at 103.  The closing date for receipt of proposals was February 21, 2020.  COS at 4. The RFP provided minimum specifications for the VESI hardware sought, which included flat-panel televisions.  AR, Tab 4, RFP att. 3, VESI Minimum Specifications.  The solicitation also included pricing tables on which offerors were to enter a unit price for each item across each contract period.  RFP at 89; AR, Tab 5, Pricing Table.  The pricing tables included a variety of information about the equipment, such as the item’s name and description, as well as the unit of measure.  RFP at 88.  As relevant here, the RFP instructed offerors to insert the name of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and the OEM part number associated with the item (unless that information was already present) when completing the pricing table.  Id.  The RFP provided for the evaluation of proposals in four phases.  Id. at 103-110.  Under phase one, the SSA would evaluate proposals to determine whether offerors possessed certain required certifications and specializations.  Id. at 93, 103.  Only those proposals that received a rating of “acceptable” in phase one would proceed to phase two, the Section 508 conformance evaluation.[2]  Id. at 103The proposals with the highest overall conformance ratings in phase two would then advance to phase three, the best-value tradeoff analysis.  Id.