Decision released in protest denial of VA implementation and subscription services to ensure Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) compliance

DIGEST

Protest that the solicitation was latently ambiguous is without a basis where the protester does not show an ambiguity.  To the extent the protester alleges a lack of clarity in the solicitation, the alleged lack of clarity was evident prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals, and this argument, having first been raised after award, is dismissed as an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation.   2.  Protest alleging the contracting officer ignored adverse information when making a responsibility determination is dismissed where the assertion on which the protest is based does not constitute the type of allegation that triggers a review under our Bid Protest Regulations.  3.  Protest that the agency’s past performance evaluation was unreasonable is denied where the agency’s judgments were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.   4.  Protest challenging the agency’s best-value award decision is denied where the record shows that the selection authority’s comparisons were meaningful and based on the agency’s reasonable evaluation of the competing proposals.

DISCUSSION

The protester contends that the solicitation’s PWS contained latent ambiguities regarding the level of effort necessary to perform the contract.  Comments & Supp. Protest at 3-4.  The protester also complains that LSPedia’s low price indicated that LSPedia did not understand the requirements, and as a result, the VA should have found that LSPedia was not responsible and referred the firm to the Small Business Administration (SBA) under its certificate of competency procedures.  Protest at 2.  Additionally, the protester contends that LSPedia’s proposal should not have been rated as low risk under the past performance factor because it has not performed a contract with the federal government, and the protester also complains that the agency’s bestvalue tradeoff was unreasonable.  Id.  We have reviewed all of these challenges and conclude that none provides us with a basis to sustain the protest.6  Latent Ambiguity   ConsortiEX argues “that the Solicitation contained latent ambiguities that led ConsortiEX to compete against an understanding of the requirements that differed from the Agency’s.”  Comments & Supp. Protest at 4.  The protester complains that these ambiguities led it to price its proposal substantially higher than the agency’s independent government cost estimate (IGCE) and LSPedia’s proposed price.  Id.  But for the alleged ambiguities, ConsortiEX claims that it would have submitted a more competitively priced proposal.  Id.  The VA responds that the PWS was unambiguous…

DECISION

ConsortiEX, Inc., a small business of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, protests the award of a contract to LSPedia, Inc., a small business of Farmington Hills, Michigan, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B23R0021, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for implementation and subscription services to ensure VA compliance with the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA).  The protester contends that the RFP was latently ambiguous with respect to the level of effort required and challenges the VA’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision.    We dismiss the protest in part and deny the protest in part.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story