Monbo Group International, Ltd. (W81K0023R0002)

B-421554 Jun 22, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Monbo Group International, a small business of Owings Mills, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Frontier Strategies, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K00-23-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Medical Command, for biomedical equipment technician services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals under the technical and price factors. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Monbo Group International File: B‑421554 Date: June 22, 2023 Dee Monbo for the protester. Michael McDermott, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. David A. Edelstein, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the proposal did not comply with solicitation requirements. 2. Protest of agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal is dismissed where protester is not an interested party to raise such challenges and where the protest does not set forth a sufficient legal or factual basis. DECISION Monbo Group International, a small business of Owings Mills, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Frontier Strategies, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K00‑23‑R‑0002, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Medical Command, for biomedical equipment technician services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals under the technical and price factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 8, 2022, the agency issued the RFP, seeking biomedical equipment technicians (BMETs) and other personnel in support of the Department of Biomedical Engineering Services at Brooke Army Medical Center, located at Joint Base San Antonio, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; see Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The solicitation was set aside for award under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program.[1] COS at 1; AR Tab 15, RFP at 1.[2] The solicitation provided that award would be made on a lowest‑price, technically acceptable basis. AR, Tab 12, RFP attach. 1 at 5.[3] The non‑price evaluation factors were technical capability, past performance, and compensation plan. The technical capability factor was divided into three subfactors: PWS compliance, recruitment, and transition plan. Id. In order to be eligible for award, a proposal was required to earn a rating of acceptable “on all technical subfactors, and on the overall factor.” Id. A proposal would earn a rating of acceptable under the technical capability factor and its subfactors if the “[p]roposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Id. at 5. A rating of unacceptable was defined as “[p]roposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Id. The agency received eight timely proposals, including proposals from Monbo and Frontier. COS at 2. Monbo’s proposal was the lowest‑priced. See AR, Tab 22, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 6. The agency determined that Monbo’s proposal was unacceptable under the PWS compliance and recruitment subfactors of the technical capability factor.[4] Id. at 7‑8. As Monbo’s proposal was found to be unacceptable under two subfactors, the agency assigned the proposal a rating of unacceptable for the technical capability factor as a whole. Id. The source selection authority (SSA) explained that these unacceptable ratings rendered Monbo’s proposal ineligible for award, and that the agency therefore did not evaluate the proposal under the past performance or compensation plan evaluation factors. Id. at 11‑12. Ultimately, the SSA determined that Frontier’s proposal was the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable proposal. Id. at 18‑19. On March 10, 2023, the agency notified Monbo of its award of the contract to Frontier. AR, Tab 23, Unsuccessful Offeror Notice. This protest followed. DISCUSSION Monbo challenges the agency’s determination that its proposal was technically unacceptable, as well as the agency’s determination that the awardee’s proposal was technically acceptable and reasonably priced. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the protester’s challenges to the evaluation of its own proposal, and we dismiss the protest with respect to the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal.[5] Evaluation of the Protester’s Proposal The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found its proposal to be unacceptable under the PWS compliance and recruitment subfactors.