FS Federal, LLC (W9124J25R0010)

B-423450 Jun 03, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Revolve Solutions, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Vistra Communications, LLC, of Lutz, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J-25-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army for commercial communication planning and support services. Revolve argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Revolve Solutions LLC File: B-423450 Date: June 3, 2025 Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., Dana Molinari, Esq., and David O’Neill, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Ambika J. Biggs, Esq., William L. Walsh, Esq., and Allison P. Klena, Esq., Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., for Vistra Communications, LLC, the intervenor. Robert B. Neill, Esq., Lieutenant Colonel Sean Zehtab, and Angela M. Fortier, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Revolve Solutions, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Vistra Communications, LLC, of Lutz, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J‑25‑R‑0010, issued by the Department of the Army for commercial communication planning and support services. Revolve argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 27, 2024, the Army issued the RFP to procure communication planning and support services for its Office of the Chief of Public Affairs. Agency Report (AR) Tab 3a, RFP at 1, 60.[1] The selected contractor would be required to provide operations support, as well as communications research, planning, and product development. See id. at 81-95. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price contract to be performed over a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods. Id. at 61. The acquisition was conducted using the policies set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 in conjunction with the procedures under FAR part 15. AR, Tab 3o, RFP, amend. 4 at 10. Award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis considering technical capability, past performance, and cost/price factors. Id. The technical capability factor included two subfactors: technical approach, and staffing plan/key personnel qualifications experience. Id. The technical capability and past performance factors would be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Id. at 11-12. Prior to the January 23, 2025, close of the solicitation period, 18 offerors, including Revolve and Vistra, submitted proposals. AR, Tab 5e, Source Selection Decision at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5. The Army evaluated Revolve’s proposal as unacceptable under the technical capability factor and the technical approach subfactor. AR, Tab 5b, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 33. The evaluators determined that the firm did not demonstrate the ability to perform all the tasks outlined in the PWS. Id.; AR, Tab 5d, Consolidated Pre‑negotiation Objective Memorandum/ Price Negotiation Memorandum (POM/PNM) at 18. Specifically, the Army concluded: [Revolve’s] proposal provided unacceptable evidence in their ability to perform and satisfy all contractual requirements of this solicitation. The proposal does not demonstrate a high level of understanding of the tasks outlined in the PWS. Offeror provides minimal evidence of their ability to understand the development and execution of strategies, specifically for operations research, analysis and analytical expertise required for analytical communication and assessment [in accordance with (IAW)] PWS 5.3. They failed to address morning news reporting required daily and on the weekends, breaking news requirements and how they’d support monthly media analysis across multiple social media platforms. Offeror’s proposal stated they would produce 40 communication plans per year, but the PWS requires up to 60 per year. Offeror failed to address the Think Tank support requirement to execute 20 events on an annual basis as required in the PWS section 5.6. Id. Ultimately, the agency evaluated three proposals as technically acceptable, including that of Vistra. AR, Tab 5d, Consolidated POM/PNM at 31. The agency awarded the contract to Vistra because its evaluated price of $12,818,454 was the lowest of the three. Id. This protest followed. DISCUSSION Revolve contends that the Army unreasonably evaluated its technical approach as unacceptable. The firm argues its proposal demonstrated its capability to perform all the PWS functions. Comments at 1-9.