High Plains Computing, Inc- dba HPC Solutions (36C10B24Q0283)

B-422934 Dec 06, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights High Plains Computing, Inc., doing business as HPC Solutions, of Denver, Colorado, protests the issuance of a task order to Veterans EZ Info Inc., of San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B24Q0283, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide development, testing, deployment, and security and operations support for legacy, current, and future Office of Information and Technology community care product line products. The protester challenges the awardee's size status and asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated price and technical proposals. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of: High Plains Computing, Inc-d/b/a HPC Solutions File: B-422934 Date: December 6, 2024 Rodger Cree for the protester. Frank S. Murray, Esq., and Caitlin Trevillyan, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for Veterans EZ Info Inc., the intervenor. Peter S. Kozlowski, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the size status of the awardee is dismissed because the issue is not for GAO’s consideration. 2. Protest challenging the reasonableness of the agency’s price evaluation is dismissed where, in this fixed price competition, the protester asserts the agency failed to conduct a price realism evaluation when the solicitation did not advise offerors that the agency would do so, and where the protester’s allegation that the agency failed to conduct a reasonable unbalanced price evaluation is speculative and fails to state a valid basis of protest. 3. Protest challenging the reasonableness of the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the record demonstrates that the protester cannot establish that it was prejudiced by the alleged errors. DECISION High Plains Computing, Inc., doing business as HPC Solutions, of Denver, Colorado, protests the issuance of a task order to Veterans EZ Info Inc., of San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B24Q0283, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide development, testing, deployment, and security and operations support for legacy, current, and future Office of Information and Technology community care product line products. The protester challenges the awardee’s size status and asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated price and technical proposals. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The solicitation, set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), was issued to General Services Administration multiple award schedule information technology professional service (GSA MAS 54151S) SDVOSB contract holders. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP[1] at 1, 129. The hybrid fixed-price, time-and-materials, and cost reimbursable task order had a term of 12 months with four 12-month option periods. Id. at 1, 136. All labor required for contract performance was fixed price. Id. at 9. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering three factors: technical, past performance[2], and price. Id. at 135. The technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. A rating of acceptable or higher under the technical factor was necessary to be considered for award. Id. As relevant to this protest, a deficiency was defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Authority (SSA) Briefing Slides at 19. The VA would rate as unacceptable a proposal that “indicates a lack of understanding of the problems or an approach that cannot be expected to meet requirements or involves a very high risk.” Id. at 18. The VA would rate as susceptible of being made acceptable a proposal that, “as initially proposed, cannot be rated Acceptable because of minor errors, omissions or deficiencies.” Id. If award was made without discussions, proposals with this rating would be considered unacceptable. Id. The RFP advised offerors that that the agency would verify the offeror’s calculation of total price and “may evaluate whether the Offeror has submitted unbalanced pricing.” RFP at 136. The solicitation did not provide for a price realism analysis. See id. The VA received timely proposals from five firms, including the protester and the awardee. See AR, Tab 7, SSD at 1. The agency assigned HPC’s proposal two deficiencies and evaluated it as unacceptable under the technical factor. AR, Tab 8, SSA Briefing Slides at 30, 31, 52.