Granite Telecommunications, LLC (36C10A24R0003)

B-423102.3 Jul 21, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Granite Telecommunications, LLC (Granite), of Quincy, Massachusetts, protests the issuance of a task order to Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation LLC (MetTel), of New York, New York, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10A24R0003, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA or agency) for plain old telephone services (POTS) replacement services. The protester challenges the evaluation of proposals and resulting source selection decision. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of: Granite Telecommunications, LLC DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. File: B-423102.3 Date: July 21, 2025 David E. Fletcher, Esq., Cooley LLP, for the protester. Thomas K. David, Esq., Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., Reston Law Group, LLP, for Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation LLC, the intervenor. Tia Dinh, Esq., and Peter S. Kozlowski, Jr., Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest contending awardee should have been evaluated as technically unacceptable because its low price demonstrated a lack of understanding of the requirements is dismissed for failing to state a valid basis of protest where solicitation did not provide for a price realism evaluation. 2. Protest arguing agency failed to assess multiple strengths in protester's proposal is denied where the record reflects the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The protester's disagreement with the agency's assessment of the merits of the firm's proposal does not provide a basis to sustain the protest. 3. Protest alleging agency made award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, rather than conducting a tradeoff as required by the solicitation, is denied where the record shows the agency considered the relative benefits of the competing proposals and made award using the tradeoff process contemplated by the solicitation. DECISION Granite Telecommunications, LLC (Granite), of Quincy, Massachusetts, protests the issuance of a task order to Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation LLC (MetTel), of New York, New York, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10A24R0003, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA or agency) for plain old telephone services (POTS) replacement services. The protester challenges the evaluation of proposals and resulting source selection decision. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND On July 1, 2024, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to holders of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the General Services Administration's Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions (EIS) multiple-award IDIQ contract vehicle. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4a, RFP at 5, 6, 60.[1] The solicitation sought proposals to provide the VA with POTS replacement services, and required that the successful “Contractor shall provide Managed Network Services (MNS) per Section C.2.8.1 of the EIS Contract and Section C.9 in the SOW [statement of work].” Id. at 6, 12. Specifically, the solicitation stated: “This effort is for a turn-key Contractor managed and maintained solution that shall include all required service related equipment to replace existing VA POTS lines. Contractor's solution shall operate independent of any VA data network services.” Id. at 14. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single fixed-price and time-and-materials with economic price adjustment task order with a 1-year base period, six 1-year option periods, and a seventh 5-month option period. RFP at 7-10, 49, 63. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following four factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; (3) price; and (4) veterans' involvement. Id. at 68. The solicitation provided that technical was the most important factor, and it was significantly more important than the second most important factor--past performance. Id. Past performance, in turn, was significantly more important than price, which was significantly more important than veterans' involvement. Id. Relevant here, under the technical factor, the agency would assign proposals one of the following adjectival ratings: outstanding; good; acceptable; susceptible to being made acceptable; or unacceptable. AR, Tab 6, Source Selection Evaluation Plan at 11. For the price factor, the agency would evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness and balance. Id.