ARTi, Inc. (W911S022R0012)

B-420699 Jul 06, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ARTi, Inc., of Hampton, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W911S022R0012, issued by the Department of the Army to provide support services for its Army Training Information System. The protester contends that the solicitation improperly provides for award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis when it also invites offerors to submit alternate proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: ARTi, Inc. File: B-420699 Date: July 6, 2022 Robert M. Holmes, Jr., ARTi, Inc., for the protester. Weston E. Borkenhagen, Esq., and Jill B. Wiley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Elizabeth R. Walsh, Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that solicitation improperly provides for award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis when it also invites offerors to submit alternate proposals is denied because, contrary to the protester’s argument, the solicitation of alternate proposals does not mean the agency cannot evaluate those proposals on a binary basis. DECISION ARTi, Inc., of Hampton, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W911S022R0012, issued by the Department of the Army to provide support services for its Army Training Information System. The protester contends that the solicitation improperly provides for award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis when it also invites offerors to submit alternate proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year and four 1‑year options to provide support services for the Army Training Information System. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 8, Conformed RFP at 4. The agency seeks contractor support for system continuity, information documentation and maintenance, help desk support, and system engineering services. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1. The RFP contemplates the award of the contract on an LPTA basis. RFP at 92. In this connection, proposals were to be evaluated under three factors: mission capability, past performance, and price. Id. at 93. Under the mission capability factor, the agency would consider the proposals’ technical capability, quality control program, recruitment and retention, and organizational management, with acceptable ratings for proposals meeting the solicitation requirements. Id. at 94. The record shows that the agency determined that making award on an LPTA basis was the most appropriate method for meeting its requirements. In this connection, the record shows that the agency executed a determination and finding (D&F) as required by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) subsection 215.101-2-70 (a)(1)(viii) in arriving at its decision to solicit the requirement using LPTA procedures.[1] AR, Exh. 4, LPTA D&F. ARTi timely submitted its protest to our Office, arguing that award should be based on a best-value tradeoff, rather than an LPTA basis. DISCUSSION The protester argues that the agency’s use of LPTA source selection procedures is improper. The protester largely does not take issue with the agency’s substantive conclusions made in its D&F. Instead, ARTi principally argues that, because the RFP invites offerers to submit alternate proposals,[2] the agency necessarily will be evaluating proposals and making its source selection on a comparative basis which, according to the protester, is inconsistent with making award on an LPTA basis. We find no merit to the protest. The determination of a contracting agency’s needs and the best method of accommodating them are matters primarily within the agency’s discretion. Crewzers Fire Crew Transp., Inc., B-402530, B-402530.2, May 17, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 117 at 3. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment concerning its needs and how best to accommodate them, without more, does not establish that the agency’s judgment is unreasonable. Chenega Fed. Sys., LLC, B-414478, June 26, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 196 at 3. As an initial matter, the agency explains that it is required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 12.301(b)(1) to include the provision inviting alternate proposals in the solicitation because the solicitation is for the acquisition of commercial products and services. This section of the FAR requires agencies to include the “instructions to offerors” clause at FAR 52.212-1 in all solicitations for commercial products and services, and also largely precludes the agency from tailoring those instructions.