Tipping Point Solutions, Inc. (W911S023RMCTU)

B-422570,B-422570.2 Aug 08, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tipping Point Solutions, Inc., a small business of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to AIM-KeyBridge Alliance, LLC (AKA), of Columbia, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911S0-23-R-MCTU, issued by the Department of the Army for online training and education support services. The protester asserts that the agency improperly downgraded Tipping Point's proposal based on a misinterpretation of the applicable solicitation page allowance requirements. Tipping Point also challenges the Army's evaluation of past performance proposals as unreasonable and unequal. 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: Tipping Point Solutions, Inc. File: B-422570; B-422570.2 Date: August 8, 2024 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Deborah Appel, Esq., for AIM-KeyBridge Alliance, LLC, the intervenor. Major Heather M. Martin, Department of the Army, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that certain required information was in proposal pages that exceeded the solicitation's page limits, and the agency's decision not to consider that information was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's terms. DECISION Tipping Point Solutions, Inc., a small business of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to AIM-KeyBridge Alliance, LLC (AKA), of Columbia, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911S0-23-R-MCTU, issued by the Department of the Army for online training and education support services. The protester asserts that the agency improperly downgraded Tipping Point's proposal based on a misinterpretation of the applicable solicitation page allowance requirements. Tipping Point also challenges the Army's evaluation of past performance proposals as unreasonable and unequal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on June 26, 2023, as a competitive 8(a) set-aside,[1] seeking to award a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for one base year and four 1-year option periods for “Army Virtual Learning Environment 2.0” services in support of the Office of the Vice Provost for Digital Education at Fort Eustis, Virginia. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1, 3; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The Army issued the RFP under the procedures of FAR part 15 with subpart 16.5 to be used for subsequent fixed-price task orders. COS at 1. The solicitation contemplated award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following four evaluation factors: (1) technical approach--scenario based knowledge assessment; (2) management and staffing approach; (3) past performance; and (4) price. RFP at 45. As relevant here, the RFP required a “rating of no less than ‘[a]cceptable' . . . for all non-priced factors” to be considered for award. Id. Also of importance to this protest, the solicitation required offerors to submit proposals divided into five separate volumes, and provided page limitations for each of the non-price volumes of a proposal, as follows: Volume Title Digital Copies Maximum Pages I Technical Approach--Scenario Based Knowledge Assessment 1 50 (PDF) II Management and Staffing Approach 1 25 (PDF) III Past Performance 1 50 (PDF) IV Price 1 No page limit (PDF and/or Excel) V Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations 1 No page limit (PDF) Id. at 54. Directly beneath the table setting forth the page limits for the five proposal volumes, the solicitation included the following, in bold: NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government. Id. at 54-55 (emphasis omitted). The RFP also provided specific instructions for the content of each volume. For example, the solicitation advised that volume I: shall consist of a Table of Contents and the Narrative Discussion. The Table of Contents breaks down Factor 1 into sections and includes the list of key terms with their definitions, a list of acronyms and abbreviations, and a list of tables and drawings used in the proposal. Id. at 55.