Xenith Group, LLC (W911S0-21-R-0008)

B-420706 Jul 14, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Xenith Group, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Digital Consultants, LLC, under task order proposal request (TOPR) No. W911S021R0008. The Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command-Fort Eustis, issued the TOPR for video teleconferencing and audiovisual support services. The protester argues that the agency rejected its proposal for reasons that are inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. Protest at 8. Xenith also alleges that the Army unreasonably failed to credit its subcontractors for work that was "too close at hand for the [a]gency to ignore." Id. at 9. Finally, the protester alleges that the awardee took steps to hire Xenith's key personnel, arguing that Digital's actions constituted an "impermissible bait and switch." Id. We dismiss the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Xenith Group, LLC File: B-420706 Date: July 14, 2022 Thomas K. David, Esq., Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Katherine A. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for the protester. Dana J. Chase, Esq., Major Jason C. Coffey, Andrew J. Smith, Esq., and Major Bruce L. Mayeaux, Department of the Army, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal fails to state a valid basis for protest where the protester misunderstood the solicitation criteria, and where the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest arguing that the agency disregarded information that was “too close at hand” to ignore fails to state a valid basis for protest where the too close at hand line of decisions does not apply to technical evaluations. 3. Protest alleging that the awardee engaged in an impermissible bait and switch fails to state a valid basis for protest where the protester’s allegations are based only on speculation. DECISION Xenith Group, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Digital Consultants, LLC, under task order proposal request (TOPR) No. W911S021R0008. The Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command‑Fort Eustis, issued the TOPR for video teleconferencing and audiovisual support services. The protester argues that the agency rejected its proposal for reasons that are inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. Protest at 8. Xenith also alleges that the Army unreasonably failed to credit its subcontractors for work that was “too close at hand for the [a]gency to ignore.” Id. at 9. Finally, the protester alleges that the awardee took steps to hire Xenith’s key personnel, arguing that Digital’s actions constituted an “impermissible bait and switch.” Id. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the TOPR on December 16, 2021, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, to firms holding General Services Administration 8(a) STARS III governmentwide acquisition contracts, seeking video teleconferencing, internet protocol television, and audiovisual services at Fort Eustis, Virginia, in support of the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command. TOPR at 1, 39. The solicitation provided for award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis considering two factors: technical capability and price. Id. at 43-44. As relevant here, the solicitation provided for an initial check of compliance with the TOPR’s instructions and advised that a task order proposal “may be rejected when [it] fails to meaningfully respond to the instructions specified in this [task order request] TOR.” TOPR at 45. The TOPR provided that proposals “not otherwise rejected will be evaluated by the Government providing careful, full, and impartial consideration.” Id. at 44. For proposals not otherwise rejected, the solicitation advised that evaluators would consider two elements under the technical capability factor: technical approach, and management/staffing approach. Id. at 44. Proposals would be scored as acceptable or unacceptable under this factor, where an acceptable proposal “clearly meets the minimum requirements of the TOR” and an unacceptable proposal “does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the TOR.” Id. Xenith submitted its proposal on January 27, 2022. Req. for Dismissal at 8. The Army did not immediately reject Xenith’s proposal, but did find it unacceptable under the technical capability factor after evaluating it in accordance with the solicitation criteria. Id.; Protest exh. 3, Consensus Technical Evaluation at 1.