Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (36C10B22R0118)

B-420911 Nov 01, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Verizon), of Annapolis Junction, Maryland, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B22R0118, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to acquire enterprise-wide mobile communications devices and services. Verizon argues that the RFP is inconsistent with commercial practices and includes certain terms and conditions that are inadequately defined and should be clarified. 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: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless File: B-420911 Date: November 1, 2022 Kayleigh M. Scalzo, Esq., Jason A. Carey, Esq., Brooke G. Stanley, Esq., and Anna M. Menzel, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for the protester. Chris S. Tiroff, Esq., Frank V. DiNicola, Esq., and Reza Behinia, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging terms of solicitation on grounds that agency is impermissibly using commercial acquisition procedures to obtain non-commercial products and services is denied where record shows that the solicited requirements are available commercially. DECISION Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Verizon), of Annapolis Junction, Maryland, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B22R0118, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to acquire enterprise-wide mobile communications devices and services. Verizon argues that the RFP is inconsistent with commercial practices and includes certain terms and conditions that are inadequately defined and should be clarified. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award of three fixed-price contracts for a base period of six months, followed by eight 1-year options and an additional 6-month option, to provide mobile devices and related wireless services to the agency at installations throughout the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Saipan, and the Philippines, as well as services outside the United States on a temporary basis. RFP at 14, 91.[1] The solicitation contemplates the awards to be made on a low-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, with award of 50 percent of the agency’s requirement to be made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror, 40 percent of the agency’s requirement to the second lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror, and 10 percent of the agency’s requirement to the third lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror. RFP at 92. The agency is conducting this acquisition as a commercial acquisition under Federal Acquisition Regulation part 12, and much of Verizon’s protest focuses on whether the agency properly may conduct the procurement as a commercial acquisition. In its protest, Verizon initially objected to the agency’s use of LPTA procedures (protest allegation I A). Verizon also challenged certain requirements relating to the provision of a public safety network for first responders and for public safety purposes that Verizon characterized as unduly restrictive of competition based on its position that the solicitation provisions “tracked” products offered by a competitor, AT&T Mobility, LLC (protest allegation II A). Verizon also argued that certain other solicitation provisions are unduly restrictive of competition, including requirements for local control and incident response tools that control network resources; real-time visibility into the network’s health; dedicated public safety customer support; and greater interoperability throughout the first responder and public safety community (protest allegation II B). Verizon further argued that certain RFP provisions are inadequately defined, including solicitation terms relating to voice plan requirements for basic phones versus smart phones (protest allegation IV A); solicitation terms relating to the provision of a public safety network (protest allegation IV B); and solicitation terms relating to ad hoc reporting requirements (protest allegation IV D). The agency provided a detailed response to these allegations and, based on its review of the agency’s report, Verizon withdrew all of these challenges to the solicitation (protest allegations I A, II A, II B, IV A, IV B, and IV D) in its comments. Protester’s Comments at 1-2, 4 n. 1.