PDS Consultants, Inc. (36C24820R0087)

B-419300 Dec 16, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PDS Consultants, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Sparta, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract to Superior Optical Lab, Inc., an SDVOSB of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24820R0087, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for prescription eyeglasses and optician services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's technical proposal and challenges the agency's responsibility determination. We dismiss 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:  PDS Consultants, Inc. File:  B-419300 Date:  December 16, 2020 David S. Gallacher, Esq., Emily S. Theriault, Esq., and Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester. Elizabeth Connally, Esq., Connally Law, PLLC; John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., and Robert J. Sneckenberg, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Superior Optical Labs, Inc., the intervenor. Natica Chapman Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate whether the awardee would be able to meet staffing levels or optician certifications is dismissed as legally and factually insufficient where the protester’s allegations, even if unrebutted, fail to establish a violation of law by the agency because the solicitation did not provide for evaluation of staffing levels or optician certifications. 2.  Protest challenging contracting officer’s affirmative determination of responsibility for the awardee is dismissed where the assertion on which the protest is based does not constitute the type of allegation that triggers a review under our Bid Protest Regulations. DECISION   PDS Consultants, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Sparta, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract to Superior Optical Lab, Inc., an SDVOSB of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24820R0087, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for prescription eyeglasses and optician services.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s technical proposal and challenges the agency’s responsibility determination.  We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND On August 24, 2020, the VA issued the RFP, as a set-aside for SDVOSBs, for prescription eyeglasses and optician services for the VA’s Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 8 medical centers and care sites located in and around Orlando, Tampa, and Bay Pines, Florida.  Req. for Dismissal at 1-2.  The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a term not to exceed 12 months.  Protest, exh. 3, RFP at 5.  The RFP anticipated award to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal.  RFP at 68.  The solicitation provided for evaluation under two factors:  proposed frame mix and price.  Id. at 67-68.  To be found technically acceptable, the solicitation provided that an offeror must submit with its proposal samples of all 116 of the frames listed in the solicitation.  Id. at 68-69.  With regard to price, the solicitation’s instructions advised offerors to submit “all-inclusive prices” which “shall include all work and optician staffing to successful[ly] perform the requirements of the [statement of need] SON.”  Id. at 67.  The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate price based on reasonableness.  Id. at 69.  The solicitation also provided that past performance was not an evaluation factor, but instead would be reviewed as part of the contracting officer’s responsibility determination prior to contract award in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.104-1. Id. at 70. The agency received seven proposals, including proposals from Superior and PDS, by the RFP closing date.  Req. for Dismissal at 3; Protest, exh. 1, Unsuccessful Offeror Letter, at 1.  After evaluating proposals, the agency identified the proposal submitted by Superior in the amount of $2,443,048, as the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer.  Id. at 3; Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1.  The contracting officer then determined that Superior was responsible based on the general standards of responsibility described in FAR 9.104-1, including a determination that Superior had a satisfactory performance record in accordance with FAR 9.104-1(c).