Superior Optical Labs, Inc. (36C24721R0067)

B-421311,B-421311.2 Mar 15, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Superior Optical Labs, Inc. (Superior), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, protests the award of a contract to PDS Consultants, Inc., an SDVOSB of Louisville, Kentucky, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24721R0067, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for prescription eyeglasses and optician services. The protester challenges the procurement in a number of ways. 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: Superior Optical Labs, Inc. File: B-421311; B-421311.2 Date: March 15, 2023 John E. McCarthy Jr., Esq., and Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, and Elizabeth Haws Connally, Esq., Connally Law, PLLC, for the protester. David Gallacher, Esq., Emily Theriault, Esq., and Adam Bartolanzo, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for PDS Consultants, Inc., the intervenor. Natica Chapman Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Post‑award protest that the agency failed to solicit proposals in accordance with its actual needs is dismissed as untimely. 2. Protest that a wide pricing disparity evidenced different understandings of the requirement causing the agency to evaluate proposals on an uncommon basis is denied where the record shows that the competing proposals were based on the same commercial items and services, the same product descriptions, and the same estimated quantities. 3. Protest challenging the contracting officer’s unbalanced pricing analysis as unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the analysis complied with applicable regulation and was otherwise unobjectionable. 4. Protest that the contracting officer’s affirmative determination of responsibility violated applicable regulation is denied where the record does not demonstrate the alleged regulatory violation. 5. Protest challenging the best‑value tradeoff decision is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency recognized the benefits associated with the higher-rated proposal and determined that such benefit did not justify paying the price premium associated with it. DECISION Superior Optical Labs, Inc. (Superior), a service‑disabled veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB) of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, protests the award of a contract to PDS Consultants, Inc., an SDVOSB of Louisville, Kentucky, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24721R0067, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for prescription eyeglasses and optician services. The protester challenges the procurement in a number of ways. We deny the protest. Background On August 25, 2021, the VA issued the RFP as a set‑aside for SDVOSBs under the commercial products and services procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 and the negotiated contracting procedures of FAR part 15. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 1, 149‑151; see also Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1‑2. The RFP sought proposals for the provision of prescription eyeglasses and onsite licensed optician services within the VA healthcare network covering the states of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, referred to as Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 7. RFP at 59. The RFP contemplated the award of a single fixed-price contract with a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods. Id. at 60, 149. The type of contract awarded would be contract line item number (CLIN)‑specific; that is, the CLINs covering onsite licensed optician services would be awarded on a requirements basis, and all other CLINs would be awarded as an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract with fixed‑price orders issuing under the IDIQ contract. Id. at 149. Award would be made using a two‑stage evaluation. Proposals would first be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable under a technical acceptability standard factor. Id. at 151. This would consist of evaluating two sample eyeglass frame kits submitted by each offeror.[1] Id. at 79‑81, 142, 151. Proposals earning an acceptable rating under this factor would advance to the next stage of the competition where they would be evaluated under two additional factors, experience and price, with experience being considered more important than price. Id. at 151. Under the experience factor, offerors were instructed to submit “a narrative describing [their] specific experience providing prescription eyeglasses manufacturing and/or onsite licensed optician services[.]” Id. at 143. The VA would then “evaluate an Offeror’s Experience by assessing the Offeror’s narrative response[.]” Id.