MicroTechnologies, LLC (36C10D21R0001)

B-420196.3,B-420196.4 Jan 06, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MicroTechnologies, LLC, a small business of Tysons, Virginia, protests the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to four other firms under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10D21R001, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for project support services. The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated offerors' proposals under the technical and past performance factors, made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff decision, and failed to consider information relevant to the responsibility of one 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: MicroTechnologies, LLC File: B‑420196.3; B‑420196.4 Date: January 6, 2023 Aron C. Beezly, Esq., Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Aleia Barlow, Esq., and Catherine R. Gilabert, Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. David A. Edelstein, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of agency’s technical evaluation and tradeoff decision is denied where agency reasonably concluded that protester’s proposal met, but did not exceed, the solicitation requirements, and where source selection authority reasonably considered qualitative differences between proposals. 2. Protest of agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where agency reasonably determined that protester’s submitted past performance project was not similar in size to the instant requirement. 3. Protest of agency’s affirmative responsibility determination is denied where protester has not demonstrated that contracting officer failed to consider information having a strong bearing on awardee’s responsibility. DECISION MicroTechnologies, LLC, a small business of Tysons, Virginia, protests the award of indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts to four other firms[1] under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10D21R001, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for project support services. The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated offerors’ proposals under the technical and past performance factors, made an unreasonable best‑value tradeoff decision, and failed to consider information relevant to the responsibility of one awardee. We deny the protest. Background The agency issued the RFP on February 26, 2021, seeking project management support and related business support services. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The solicitation was set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3a, RFP at 1.[2] The solicitation stated that the agency intended to award three IDIQ contracts, but that the agency may award more than three if it determined that doing so would be advantageous. Id. The RFP anticipated an ordering period of five years. AR, Tab 3a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5. The maximum aggregate value of task orders to be issued to each awardee was $21.6 million. RFP at 6. The solicitation stated that award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering price, technical, and past performance factors. RFP at 44‑45. The technical and past performance factors were equally important and, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 44. Evaluation of the technical factor was divided into two equally‑important elements: (1) technical approach, and (2) capability and experience. Id. at 45‑46. The agency would evaluate the past performance of each offeror and its major subcontractor[3] by considering if the offeror “demonstrated [a] recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that met the contract requirements.” Id. at 46. The RFP defined relevance as “a contract that is similar in size and scope [to] the requirements in this solicitation,” and explained that “[s]imilar in size means the total price of the contract, the number of staff, the number of users served, the number of locations served, etc.” Id. at 38. The RFP informed offerors that an offeror “with no recent and relevant [p]ast [p]erformance shall be evaluated as ‘[n]eutral.’” Id. at 47. To facilitate the agency’s evaluation of past performance, the solicitation required offerors to submit no more than two past performance questionnaires (PPQs) for work performed within the prior five years. RFP at 38. In response to several offeror questions, the agency stated that “one of the two PPQs must be for the prime.” AR, Tab 3c, RFP Amendment 2 Questions & Responses.