DIGEST<\/p>\n
Protest that the solicitation was latently ambiguous is without a basis where the protester does not show an ambiguity.\u00a0 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.\u00a0\u00a0 2.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 3.\u00a0 Protest that the agency\u2019s past performance evaluation was unreasonable is denied where the agency\u2019s judgments were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.\u00a0\u00a0 4.\u00a0 Protest challenging the agency\u2019s best-value award decision is denied where the record shows that the selection authority\u2019s comparisons were meaningful and based on the agency\u2019s reasonable evaluation of the competing proposals.<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION<\/p>\n
The protester contends that the solicitation\u2019s PWS contained latent ambiguities regarding the level of effort necessary to perform the contract.\u00a0 Comments & Supp. Protest at 3-4.\u00a0 The protester also complains that LSPedia\u2019s 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.\u00a0 Protest at 2.\u00a0 Additionally, the protester contends that LSPedia\u2019s 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\u2019s bestvalue tradeoff was unreasonable.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 We have reviewed all of these challenges and conclude that none provides us with a basis to sustain the protest.6\u00a0 Latent Ambiguity\u00a0\u00a0 ConsortiEX argues \u201cthat the Solicitation contained latent ambiguities that led ConsortiEX to compete against an understanding of the requirements that differed from the Agency\u2019s.\u201d\u00a0 Comments & Supp. Protest at 4.\u00a0 The protester complains that these ambiguities led it to price its proposal substantially higher than the agency\u2019s independent government cost estimate (IGCE) and LSPedia\u2019s proposed price.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 But for the alleged ambiguities, ConsortiEX claims that it would have submitted a more competitively priced proposal.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 The VA responds that the PWS was unambiguous\u2026<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
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).\u00a0 The protester contends that the RFP was latently ambiguous with respect to the level of effort required and challenges the VA\u2019s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We dismiss the protest in part and deny the protest in part.<\/p>\n