Protest Decision Details Posted: $24M VA VistA Imaging (VI) sustainment and enhancement support contract

DIGEST

Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation and subsequent best-value decision is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DISCUSSION

Veterans EZ Info primarily argues that the VA’s evaluation of execution plans was unreasonable.  In this regard, the protester contends that the solicitation “plainly required [the] VA to conduct a comparative, qualitative assessment of offerors’ proposed staffing plans, including proposed LOEs” and that “there is no question that [the] VA failed to conduct or document any evaluation” of LOEs or staffing plans, “let alone any comparative assessment.”4  Comments & Supp. Protest at 17; Supp. Comments at 5, 8.  The protester argues that had the agency performed the required analysis, it would have found that the awardee’s level of effort–whether measured by the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) or the total number of labor hours proposed for the effort–was insufficient to meet the agency’s requirements.  Comments & Supp. Protest at 20-21.   The VA contends that Veterans EZ Info misunderstands the RTEP, and that the agency was required to compare an offeror’s proposed staffing and LOE only to that offeror’s own technical approach.  Supp. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3.  In this regard, the agency argues that a comparison of offerors’ staffing to each other would have been “worthless” because offerors were instructed to submit their own unique technical approaches to meet the requirements of the performance work statement (PWS), and the staffing for one approach may have been different from the staffing for another approach.  MOL at 6-7; Supp. MOL at 2.  Further, the agency argues that it properly evaluated the proposed LOEs in accordance with the solicitation “to determine the feasibility of performance for [an offeror’s] respective technical approach to meeting the PWS requirements,” and the resulting best-value decision reflected the agency’s considerations in this regard.  MOL at 8.  In reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of proposals in a task order competition, we do not conduct a new evaluation or substitute our judgment for that of the agency but examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord with the evaluation criteria.  ZolonTech, Inc., B-418213, B-418213.2, Jan. 23, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 57 at 5.  A protester’s disagreement with an agency’s judgment is not sufficient to establish that an agency acted unreasonably.  STG, Inc., B-405101.3 et al., Jan. 12, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 48 at 7.  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires agencies to document the basis for award and rationale for any tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost considerations in making the selection decision in a task order competition.  FAR 16.505(b)(7).  While there is no need for extensive documentation of every consideration factored into a selection decision, the documentation must be sufficient to establish that the agency was aware of the relative merits and prices of the competing proposals, and that the source selection was reasonably based.

DECISION

Veterans EZ Info, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of San Diego, California, protests the issuance of a task order to Clear Vantage Point Solutions, LLC, a SDVOSB of Annandale, Virginia, under request for task execution plans (RTEP) No. T4NG-0708, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for veterans health information systems and technology architecture (VistA) imaging (VI) sustainment and enhancement support.  The protester primarily contends that the agency’s evaluation of plans was unreasonable because the agency failed to conduct a comparative analysis of the offerors’ respective levels of effort (LOE).  We deny the protest.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story