Picturae Inc. (LCFDL20R0015)

B-419233 Dec 30, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Picturae, Inc., of New York, New York, protests the award of a contract to Creekside Digital, of Glen Arm, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. LCFDL20R0015, issued by the Library of Congress (LOC) for digital imaging services. Picturae alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, conducted inadequate discussions, and improperly made the source selection decision. 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:  Picturae Inc. File:  B-419233 Date:  December 30, 2020 Shane M. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., Quinten R. Fisher, Esq., and Christopher S. Coleman, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Creekside Digital, the intervenor. Emily Vartanian, Esq., Library of Congress, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with applicable procurement statutes and regulations, and the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest that the agency conducted inadequate discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably articulated its concerns with the firm’s proposal. 3.  Protest that the agency unreasonably made its source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the decision was consistent with the evaluation results, and the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Picturae, Inc., of New York, New York, protests the award of a contract to Creekside Digital, of Glen Arm, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. LCFDL20R0015, issued by the Library of Congress (LOC) for digital imaging services.  Picturae alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, conducted inadequate discussions, and improperly made the source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 14, 2020, the LOC issued the RFP to procure digital imaging services for pre‑1978 copyright record books.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 5-6; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  Digitization will create searchable images of each record book.  RFP at 5.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to be performed over a 1-year base period, and five 1-year option periods.  Id. at 3-4. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three factors:  technical capability, past performance, and price.  RFP at 44.  The technical capability factor was more important than the past performance factor and, when combined, the non-price factors were more important than price.  Id.  The technical capability factor consisted of five subfactors:  technical approach and understanding; proposed equipment and on-site environmental requirements; target images; quality management; and personnel.  Id. at 44-45. Eight offerors, including Picturae and Creekside, submitted proposals prior to the June 11, 2020, closing date.  COS at 2.  Picturae, Creekside, and two other offerors were included in a competitive range.  Id.  Following discussions, the four offerors submitted final revised proposals on July 17, 2020.  Id.  The agency’s evaluation produced the following relevant results:   Picturae Creekside Technical Capability Acceptable Good Past Performance Low Risk Low Risk Price $5,478,165 $9,847,000   AR, Tab 10, Final Technical Evaluation Summary Report at 10; AR, 11, Contracts Review Board Memorandum (CRBM) at 4.  Based on the evaluation results, the source selection authority (SSA) identified Creekside’s proposal as offering the best value.  AR, Tab 11, CRBM at 6-7.  The SSA compared Creekside’s proposal against each of the other three proposals.  Id. When comparing the proposals of Creekside and Picturae, the agency noted that Creekside offered the best technical approach, while Picturae offered the least viable technical approach of all offerors in the competitive range.  AR, Tab 11, CRBM at 7.  The agency noted that Picturae’s estimated throughput (i.e., [DELETED] digitized pages per hour) was unrealistic, and that Picturae had overestimated the capacity of its equipment, and proposed an insufficient number of imaging stations to fulfill the requirement.[2]  Id.  Also, Picturae unreasonably conditioned its performance on the agency providing notice of the number of anticipated optional quantities to be produced at the beginning of each contract period.  Id.  As a resu...