Superior Optical Labs, Inc. (36C26122R0056)

B-421496,B-421496.2 Jun 09, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Superior Optical Labs, Inc., of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, a small business, protests the award of a contract to PDS Consultants, Inc., of Louisville, Kentucky, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C26122R0056. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued the RFP for prescription eyeglasses for veterans in the VA Southern Nevada Health Care System and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System, in California. Superior argues that the VA misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: Superior Optical Labs, Inc. File: B-421496; B-421496.2 Date: June 9, 2023 John E. McCarthy Jr., Esq., and Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP; and Elizabeth H. Connally, Esq., Connally Law, PLLC, for the protester. David S. Gallacher, Esq., and Emily S. Theriault, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for PDS Consultants, Inc., the intervenor. Natica C. Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that solicitation failed to provide a common basis for competition is denied where solicitation specified requirements for commercial items in reasonably unambiguous terms and protester failed to show how solicitation would have resulted in differing interpretations. 2. Protest that agency based price evaluation on defective quantity estimates and failed to reject awardee’s unbalanced pricing is denied where agency reasonably based quantity estimates on data from recent orders under incumbent contract and where contracting officer determined that unbalanced pricing was not material because the risk that agency would order higher quantities of overpriced items was low. DECISION Superior Optical Labs, Inc., of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, a small business, protests the award of a contract to PDS Consultants, Inc., of Louisville, Kentucky, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C26122R0056. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued the RFP for prescription eyeglasses for veterans in the VA Southern Nevada Health Care System and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System, in California. Superior argues that the VA misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued May 20, 2022, sought proposals to supply an estimated 39,000 pairs of eyeglasses annually under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for five 1‑year ordering periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 5; Tab 2, RFP, amend. 6 at 3. As amended, the RFP required offerors to submit fixed prices for individual contract line item numbers (CLIN) for a single 5-year ordering period. Offerors were required to offer a minimum number of eyeglass frame designs from which veterans could select. Based on their selections, the VA would then place orders for the eyeglasses according to the veterans’ prescribed lens optics and material. The RFP provided that a contract would be awarded to the responsible offeror that submitted the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal. AR, Tab 1, RFP at 103. The RFP listed an estimated quantity for each CLIN, and the price evaluation added the extended prices (each CLIN estimated quantity multiplied by its unit price) for all CLINs.[1] According to the solicitation, an offer could be found unacceptable if the “ordering period prices are significantly unbalanced.” Id. at 104. The RFP quantities were revised after receiving initial proposals because the contracting officer determined that the estimates needed to be revised based on additional information received from requiring officials and the contracting officer’s review of the incumbent contractor’s invoices for August 2022. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3-4. The contracting officer issued RFP amendments 5 and 6 to implement the revised estimated quantities and to request revised proposals. Id. at 4. The RFP stated that the estimated quantities in the original RFP did “not include projected increases or decreases,” and were instead “representative of current volume.” AR, Tab 1, RFP at 7. After amending the quantities, the agency stated that the quantities in the amended RFP “[we]re based on the best information available to the Agency and represent the Agency’s anticipated needs.” AR, Tab 2, RFP, amend. 6 at 3. The RFP required unit pricing based on the type of lenses or add-on features for one of the locations (Southern Nevada or Palo Alto), resulting in 94 individual CLINs.