SUBSCRIBE NOW
Introduction
General Counsel, P.C.'s Government Contracts Practice Group is pleased to provide you with the Bid Protest Weekly. Researched, written and distributed by the attorneys of General Counsel, P.C., the Bid Protest Weekly allows the Government Contract community to stay on top of the latest developments involving bid protests by providing weekly summaries of recent bid protest decisions, highlighting key areas of law, agencies, and analyses of the protest process in general.
General Counsel, P.C.'s Government Contracts Group has over eighty years of combined government contract law experience (both as in-house and outside legal counsel), helping clients solve their government contract problems relating to the award or performance of a federal government contract, including bid protests, contract claims, small business concerns, and teaming and subcontractor relations.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the discussed content, or questions about bid protests, please feel free to contact the attorneys at General Counsel, P.C. at (703) 556-0411 or visit us at www.generalcounsellaw.com
1. eTouch Federal Systems, LLC, B-404894.3, August 15, 2011
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Internal Revenue Service
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Discussions
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: once an agency has received final offers, it is not legally required to reopen discussions to permit a single offeror to demonstrate the merits of its proposal.
eTouch Federal Systems, LLC (EFS) protests the award of a contract, under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for the Enterprise Managed Web Portals Program.
The IRS issued the RFP, contemplating the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract with a five-year base period, plus five one‑year options, and a total contract ceiling of $320 million, for the redesign, development, implementation and management of three IRS web portals. According to the RFP, award was to be made to the offeror representing the best value as determined by an integrated assessment and tradeoff between technical and price.
Small business participation was one of four non-price, technical evaluation factors. If the offeror classified itself as a small business, it was exempt from this requirement, and this factor was evaluated as "not applicable." For the purpose of evaluating the small business participation factor, the RFP instructed large business offerors to include a small business subcontracting plan at Tab A, Volume IV of their proposals. As established by the RFP, the submitted plan was to include the following: small business subcontracting goals for each type of small business, expressed as a percentage of total proposed subcontracting dollars; goals for small business subcontracting dollars, again broken out by type of small business; and a description of the method used to identify the percentage goals. The RFP stated that "[t]he Government will not award a contract to any Offeror with an Unacceptable rating in any factor or subfactor."
EFS identified itself as a small business and did not include a small business subcontracting plan in its proposal. Ultimately, after conducting discussions with the offerors, receiving revised proposals, and completing its evaluation, the agency made award to EFS. Upon learning of the award to EFS, another offeror filed a size protest with the Small Business Administration (SBA) challenging the size status of EFS; the offeror also filed a protest with GAO. The SBA made a formal size status determination that EFS was "other than small." Based on the SBA's size decision, the IRS notified the GAO that it would take corrective action.
The IRS's corrective action included canceling the award to EFS and reevaluating EFS's proposal under the small business participation factor, knowing that SBA had found EFS to be other than a small business. Based on this reevaluation, the agency rated EFS unacceptable under the small business participation factor since EFS had not submitted a small business subcontracting plan. The agency conducted a new best-value determination and made contract award to another offeror.
EFS argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as unacceptable under the small business participation factor for failure to submit the required small business subcontracting plan. According to EFS, the agency should have reopened discussions and allowed EFS to revise its proposal to submit a small business contracting plan. In the alternative, EFS asserts that its proposal, as initially awarded, included the relevant subcontracting information, and that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as unacceptable under the small business participation factor. GAO first states that it is well-settled that once an agency has received final offers, it is not legally required to reopen discussions to permit a single offeror to demonstrate the merits of its proposal. In addition, EFS's contention that its proposal included the relevant subcontracting information is without merit. GAO states that the evaluation of technical proposals is generally a matter within the agency's discretion, and GAO will not disturb an agency's judgments regarding the relative merits of competing proposals absent a showing those judgments are unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria.
EFS represented itself as a small business in its proposal and to the extent this representation ultimately proved to be legally incorrect, as determined by SBA, EFS bore the risk associated with the error, not the agency. As a consequence, the IRS was under no obligation to reopen discussions in order to provide EFS with an opportunity to revise its proposal in accordance with the SBA's size status ruling.
The record is clear that EFS' proposal did not include a small business subcontracting plan at Tab A, Volume IV of its proposal, as required. Having failed to submit the small business subcontracting plan, the protester cannot reasonably require the agency to assemble the plan itself from various disparate portions of the proposal. The record simply does not support the protester's assertion that the required information could have been found in its proposal, if the agency had undertaken the search. The protest is denied.
2. STG, Inc., B-405082; B-405082.2, July 27, 2011
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Federal Supply Schedule Contract; Competition
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: FAR§ 8.405-6 exempts orders placed under the Federal Supply Schedule Contract program from the full and open competition requirements, but requires that an ordering activity justify its action when restricting consideration of schedule contractors to fewer than three competitors.
STG, Inc. protests the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issuance of a four-month task order for maintenance and support services for the VA's Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS).
This protest follows an earlier protest by STG, objecting to the issuance of a task order the incumbent, for services to develop, support, and maintain the eCMS under a request for quotations (RFQ). GAO dismissed that protest as academic after the agency notified us that it was terminating the original awardee's task order, reassessing the agency's requirements, and resoliciting the procurement. The next day the agency issued a four‑month task order to the original awardee to provide maintenance and support services for the eCMS while the agency was undertaking corrective action.
STG argues that the agency improperly issued the short-term task order to the original awardee on a sole-source basis without allowing STG an opportunity to compete for the task order. GAO states that the four-month task order was placed against the original awardee's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. FAR sect. 8.405-6 exempts orders placed under the FSS from the competition requirements of FAR Part 6, but requires that an ordering activity "justify its action when restricting consideration of . . . schedule contractors to fewer than required in [FAR sections] 8.405-1 or 8.405-2." Circumstances justifying such a restriction include where an urgent and compelling need exists and following the ordering procedures would result in unacceptable delays. Where an ordering activity restricts competition on the basis of an urgent and compelling need, the contracting officer is required to document the circumstances in writing. Where the proposed order is over $550,000 but not over $11.5 million, the justification must be approved by the competition advocate of the activity placing the order.
The agency determined that it was critical that maintenance and support services for the eCMS remain uninterrupted and seamless during the time period in which the agency reviews its requirements and resolicits the procurement. In support of this determination, the agency explained that interrupted service would have a "deleterious effect on the health and well being of Veterans" who receive "vital" services from procurement activities impacted by eCMS. To this end, the agency executed a justification and approval (J&A) for a limited source award under the FSS on an urgent and compelling basis. The agency recognized that there were other sources available for this requirement, including STG, but the agency concluded that only the original awardee, the incumbent, possessed the specialized experience specific to eCMS and the VA's needs necessary to continue to provide the critical maintenance and support without a break in service. The agency stated that any new contractor would most likely need to hire and train new employees, as well as obtain the required security credentials. The agency also estimated that it would take a new contractor at least one month to begin learning the processes and the organization, a minimum of two weeks to provide new employees with access to the VA network, and another two weeks to train the new employees on eCMS and the various subsystems. The protest is denied.
3. Business Management Associates, B-403315; B-403315.2, October 19, 2010
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Technical Evaluation
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selections, GAO examines the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws
Business Management Associates protests the award of a contract, under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for hazard mitigation training assistance.
The RFP, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base year and four option years, under which the agency would issue either fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee task orders. Offerors were informed that the contractor would provide technical assistance to the agency in the development of training materials and instruction and with respect to modernizing and streamlining its training activities. In this regard, four objectives were stated, including training development and maintenance of multi-day courses, training instruction on a variety of technical and non-technical subjects, development of presentations to effectively communicate technical and non-technical information, and technical advisement. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value basis, considering the following four equally-weighted technical evaluation factors: technical approach, qualifications of key personnel, past performance, and oral presentation.
Proposals were evaluated by the agency's source evaluation board (SEB), which assigned adjectival ratings and identified underlying strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks. BMA's overall good technical rating was supported by a narrative discussion that identified a number of strengths and only a few weaknesses in the protester's proposal. Under the qualifications of key personnel factor, for which BMA was rated good, the SEB noted as a weakness that BMA had not provided information on the experience, education, and certifications of the staff that it would provide for training material and presentation development and for web-based training development. With respect to the oral presentation, for which BMA was also rated good, the SEB noted a number of strengths and that a slow internet connection stalled BMA's presentation, which affected the firm's ability to effectively communicate; the SEB expressed concern about BMA's lack of a backup plan for its oral presentation.
BMA's business proposal was evaluated as unacceptable, because the SEB noted as a deficiency that BMA had not estimated a level of effort to perform RFP objective four (technical advisement). The SEB also noted one minor weakness and no strengths. Because BMA's business proposal was rated as unacceptable, the SEB reduced BMA's overall good technical rating to an acceptable rating. The SEB ultimately recommended award to another offeror based upon that firm's overall excellent technical rating and good business proposal rating.
BMA complains that its proposal should have been rated as excellent (instead of good) under the qualifications of key personnel and oral presentation factors; that its business (cost/price) proposal should not have been rated as unacceptable; and that the awardee's proposal should not have been rated as excellent under the past performance factor, because the awardee's identified projects were smaller than the contract work here. GAO states that in reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selections, GAO examines the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws. It is an offeror's responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation and allows a meaningful review by the procuring agency. In this regard, an offeror must affirmatively demonstrate the merits of its proposal, and risks the rejection of its proposal if it fails to do so. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the evaluators' judgments.
With respect to BMA's challenge to the weakness assessed against its proposal under the qualification of key personnel evaluation factor, the record shows that the agency viewed favorably the people BMA designated as key, but was concerned that, since there were no key personnel identified on the training teams, there was no information on the experience, education, and certifications of team members for the agency to assess. As a result, BMA's proposal did not get the highest possible rating. GAO thinks that the agency could reasonably consider under this factor whether an offeror had proposed sufficient key personnel to perform the contract work. Here, the RFP did not specify how many, or which, positions were to be considered key, but expected offerors to make this determination themselves. Determining whether an offeror has proposed sufficient key personnel in the right labor categories is reasonably encompassed within a factor that provides for assessing the quality of proposed key personnel. Here, BMA's proposal relied upon a very general description of its "teams," but did not provide the specific qualifications and experience information required for key personnel. GAO finds no basis to object to FEMA's assignment of a weakness, and a good rating, for BMA's proposal under the qualifications of key personnel factor.
BMA also objects to the SEB's rating of BMA's oral presentation as good, based upon the SEB's finding that BMA's presentation was stalled by a slow internet connection, which the evaluators found diminished the firm's ability to communicate effectively. The evaluators also noted that BMA had no apparent backup plan for this contingency. The RFP cautioned offerors that each firm was responsible for ensuring that any equipment required for the oral presentation was available and working properly for their presentation. BMA apparently planned its oral presentation based on the assumption that it would have a fast internet connection available. As the agency notes in its report, the oral presentation was intended to create a mock classroom situation. Since any of the various nationwide locations where the contractor would provide training could also lack a fast internet connection, GAO thinks it was reasonable for the agency to consider BMA's performance under these circumstances to represent a weakness, and to rate the firm's proposal accordingly.
BMA also protests FEMA's evaluation of the awardee's proposal as excellent under the past performance factor. The RFP informed offerors that the agency would assess under this factor "how well the offeror did on work for the government and private sector clients," and that the evaluation would "include assessments of the offeror's resilience to adversity, resourcefulness, and management determination to see that the organization lived up to commitments and standards." In this regard, offerors were instructed to provide contact information for three businesses or agencies for which the offeror "performed similar work to the requirements of the RFP." The RFP did not define what work would be similar to the contract requirements, nor did the solicitation require that projects identified by an offeror be similar in size, complexity and scope to the contract requirements. GAO states that where a solicitation calls for the evaluation of past performance, GAO will examine the record to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria and procurement statutes and regulations. The evaluation of past performance, by its very nature, is subjective; an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation judgments does not demonstrate that those judgments are unreasonable.
Although it is true that offeror's identified projects are relatively smaller than the contract work here, the projects the offeror identified for its past performance appear to involve the same work performed for the same agency. In these circumstances, GAO thinks it is within the contracting agency's discretion to conclude that substantially similar work, performed for the same agency but under smaller contracts, need not be disregarded based on size alone, where the solicitation does not emphasize the importance of magnitude of prior projects in the evaluation of past performance. The protest is denied.
4. Orion Technology, Inc., B-405077, August 12, 2011
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Army
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Cost Realism
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal
Orion Technology, Inc. protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration for award by the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command, under a request for proposals (RFP), for support services at various Army installations.
The agency issued the solicitation as a total small business set-aside for garrison augmentation support services at various Army installations located in the United States. The solicitation contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts, each with a 12-month base period and four one-year options. Awards were to be made without discussions, although the agency reserved the right to conduct discussions if necessary. The solicitation described the basis for award as "the best value to the Government," considering the following three evaluation factors: mission capability, past performance, and cost/price.
Offerors were to submit a cost/price proposal specific to the task order scenario. The task order scenario cost/price proposal was to include costs and pricing for numerous contract line item numbers (CLINs) listed in a pricing schedule that accompanied the solicitation. For the base period and the final option period individually, the pricing schedule included three fixed-price CLINs and 15 cost-type CLINs. For the second and third option periods individually, the pricing schedule included two fixed-price CLINs and 15 cost-type CLINs. For the base period and all of the option periods, one of the cost-type CLINs was for other direct costs (ODCs). Offerors' task order scenario cost/price proposals also were to include detailed supporting information for the proposed costs and pricing. With respect to ODCs, offerors were to provide ODC amounts "in total and as separate proposed amounts, and annotated as to the PWS paragraph the cost element supports." The solicitation provided that offerors' task order scenario cost/price proposals would be evaluated for cost realism. The solicitation further provided that offerors' proposed costs and prices would be evaluated for reasonableness using cost and price analysis techniques.
In connection with preparing a proposal in response to the solicitation, Orion teamed with eleven firms with the understanding that if Orion were awarded a contract, those firms would perform portions of the contract as subcontractors to Orion. With respect to the task order scenario, Orion's proposal indicated that eight of Orion's team members would perform tasks required by the task order scenario PWS. As required by the solicitation, Orion's task order scenario cost/pricing proposal included a table that listed the number of hours that Orion and Orion team member personnel were to work in connection with the various PWS paragraphs. The table also listed the total cost, with fee, for the work. For Orion personnel, the table disclosed the direct labor, fringe benefit, and G&A rates for each labor category. For Orion team member personnel, however, the table included no direct labor, fringe benefit, or G&A rate information. The agency received cost/price proposals from three Orion team members that were to perform tasks under the task order scenario PWS. All three cost/price proposals provided detailed supporting information, including direct labor, fringe benefit, and G&A rate information. The agency then received Orion's proposal. Orion sent two other proposal packages, but because the packages arrived after the time set for receipt of proposals, the contracting officer returned the unopened packages to Orion as late.
Based on an initial review of Orion's proposal, the agency determined that the proposal did not include required cost/pricing information for five Orion team members that were to perform tasks under the task order scenario PWS. From the initial review, the agency also determined that Orion's proposal did not include an allocation of ODCs to the task order scenario PWS CLINs, as required by the solicitation. Orion filed a protest with the agency challenging the elimination of the firm's proposal from the competition.
Orion asserts that its proposal included sufficient information for the agency's evaluation, and, therefore, the agency's determination to eliminate the proposal from consideration for award was unreasonable. GAO states that in reviewing protests challenging allegedly improper evaluations, or, as here, the rejection of a proposal based on the agency's evaluation, it is not GAO's role to reevaluate proposals; rather, GAO examines the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable, and in accordance with the solicitation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that an evaluation, or rejection, was unreasonable. Additionally, it is an offeror's responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation and allows a meaningful review by the procuring agency. Any proposal that fails to conform to material terms of the solicitation may be considered unacceptable and not form the basis for an award. Even where individual deficiencies may be susceptible to correction through discussions, the aggregate of many such deficiencies may preclude an agency from making an intelligent evaluation, and the agency is not required to give the offeror an opportunity to rewrite its proposal. Further, communications with offerors before the establishment of the competitive range "shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, or materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal."
The solicitation here provided that offerors' task order scenario cost/price proposals would be evaluated for cost realism and that proposed costs would be evaluated for reasonableness using cost analysis techniques. The FAR describes cost analysis as, "the review and evaluation of any separate cost elements and profit or fee in an offeror's or contractor's proposal, as needed to determine a fair and reasonable price or to determine cost realism, and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency." With respect to cost realism analysis, the FAR provides that, "Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal."
The FAR also provides that cost realism analyses "shall be performed on cost reimbursement contracts."
Although application of the methodology advocated by Orion would have permitted the agency to derive the fully loaded labor rates of the Orion team members for which cost information was missing, such methodology would not have permitted the agency to review the specific elements of the team members' costs to determine whether those elements were realistic or reasonable. For example, using Orion's methodology, the agency could not have derived the team members' direct labor rates or indirect costs, such as fringe benefit or G&A costs. Accordingly, application of Orion's methodology would not have permitted the agency to evaluate Orion's proposed costs as contemplated by the FAR. Further, the informational deficiencies in Orion's proposal relate to specific and detailed cost evaluation criteria in the solicitation and the solicitation expressly cautioned offerors that failure to submit the information in question could result in the elimination of a proposal from consideration for award. GAO therefore concludes that the agency reasonably excluded Orion's proposal from the competition. The protest is denied.
5. DSS Healthcare Solutions, LLC, B-403713.3, June 22, 2011
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Technical Evaluation
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Where an agency's evaluation is challenged, GAO will consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.
DSS Healthcare Solutions, LLC protests the elimination from the competitive range of the proposal it submitted in response to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) request for proposals (RFP), for information technology equipment and services .
The solicitation provided for the award of up to 15 contracts on a "best value" basis considering the following factors: technical (with subfactors for management and sample task orders (STO)), past performance, veterans involvement, small business participation commitment, and price. The agency received more than 90 proposals, including from DSS. DSS's proposal was rated acceptable for the technical and management factors, low risk for past performance, susceptible to being made acceptable for small business participation commitment, and was given full credit for veterans involvement. VA determined that DSS's proposal was not one of the most highly rated, and on this basis did not include it in the competitive range. The solicitation included three sample task orders (STO 1, STO 2, and STO 3), the responses to which were to be evaluated. The offerors were not given an opportunity to correct or revise a sample task response. The evaluation of each sample task considered: (1) Understanding of Problems and (2) Feasibility of Approach.
DSS was rated acceptable for STO 1, unacceptable for STO 2, and good for STO 3. DSS asserts that the agency used unstated criteria in evaluating its responses to the STOs. Specifically, DSS notes that for each STO the agency compiled a list of task areas and subtasks that an offeror was required to address to receive evaluation credit. DSS also protests that the agency used undisclosed evaluation criteria, and otherwise unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the STOs and the management subfactor.
The solicitation required offerors under STO 2 (software development) to design, develop and field a single financial system to replace three current systems used by approximately 100,000 VA personnel. Offerors were required to describe their approach to how they would execute all tasks necessary for this effort, and list the labor categories required to perform each effort of the task. As part of its evaluation of offerors' STO responses, the agency prepared a list of key focus areas and lower level focus areas that it believed an offeror would have to address to demonstrate that it understood the task and had a feasible approach to solving it. With respect to STO 2, the key focus areas and lower level focus areas were: project management (stakeholders, resources/labor categories, project schedule, and project management processes including change management, configuration management, risk management, quality assurance, communications, tools, and integrated product teams); policy understanding (compliance with government policy and standards for a technical reference model, VA Enterprise Architecture (EA), Office of the Management and Budget financial guidelines, and security policies); software solution (business process gap analysis, system architecture design, development process that takes into account system capacity requirements, and data warehouse/reporting capability); data migration (data migration planning, data requirements sessions with legacy system owners/users, data cleansing strategy, and migration process); training (training strategy and plan, developing training materials, training environment, and training delivery); testing (test planning, methods for test support, conducting tests, and providing test activities); and deployment/post go-live support (support planning, fielding strategy, help desk, and support teams). The agency asserts that the above considerations were related to the stated evaluation criteria and thus were properly considered.
GAO states that while solicitations must inform offerors of the basis for proposal evaluation, and the evaluation must be based on the factors set forth in the solicitation, Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.304, agencies are not required to specifically list every area that may be taken into account, provided such areas are reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated criteria. Here, the key focus and lower level focus areas that the agency considered in evaluating STO 2 were reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated criteria, and thus were not improper unstated evaluation criteria. As noted, the solicitation provided that the offeror's response to the sample task would be evaluated to determine whether the offeror understood the problem and had a feasible approach to solving it. Understanding and feasibility of approach, however, are not factors that can be evaluated on their own, without reference to the work to be accomplished. DSS has furnished no basis for GAO to conclude that such areas considered by the agency as project management, policy understanding, testing and training, and the elements that comprise these broader areas such as stakeholder involvement and compliance with government policies, were not reasonably related to performing the overall STO 2.
DSS further asserts that even apart from the issue of unstated criteria, the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. GAO states that where an agency's evaluation is challenged, it will consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.
DSS asserts that the agency overlooked information in its proposal. The agency explains that a statement in DSS's proposal addressed only financial policies and requirements, and then only minimally. According to the agency, the evaluated weakness was based on, among other things, its determination that DSS's proposal did not indicate an understanding of compliance with the applicable information technology policies and standards. More specifically, the agency determined that DSS's proposal did not demonstrate a full understanding of, or capability to comply with, VA Directive 6051, which is required as part of establishing and implementing VA's integrated One‑VA EA. In sum, according to the agency, the proposal provided only minimal detail with respect to the One‑VA EA.
In response, the protester asserts that the agency should have recognized that DSS, with its substantial expertise with One-VA EA, would comply with mandatory standards and practices required for VA development initiatives. However, the fact that DSS has experience with One-VA EA is not sufficient since DSS did not address the policies and standards in its proposal. In this regard, GAO states that it is incumbent on a protester to prepare an adequate proposal; the protester cannot use its experience as a substitute for meeting this obligation. Accordingly, the agency reasonably assigned the proposal a weakness on account of an inadequate discussion of DSS's approach to performing the STO 2 software design and development effort in a VA environment.
The protester also contends that the agency criticized its proposal with respect to One‑VA and enterprise architecture because it did not contain required buzzwords, specifically, references to the technical reference model and enterprise architecture. According to DSS, since it is an expert in these areas it was able to propose elements drawn from them, without explaining their origins. The agency explains that DSS's proposal was downgraded because it did not sufficiently demonstrate that DSS understood applicable policy because it did not discuss VA standards as applied to the DSS solution. According to the agency, without an explanation of the application of the VA standards, it was not clear that DSS was capable of implementing the required integrated One-VA EA. DSS does not respond to the agency's explanation of how DSS's proposal was rated, and GAO has no basis to question the evaluation in this regard as unreasonable.
The VA also assigned DSS's proposal a significant weakness under STO 2 for data migration, finding the proposal lacked an overall approach and strategy. The agency maintains that DSS did not provide details regarding an overall strategy for accomplishing the data migration effort. Among other things, according to the agency, DSS did not identify the different types of data to be migrated or specific data objects, and did not discuss government review and approval of generated data migration plans, establishing/maintaining a staging environment for migration processing, and executing mock or trial migration loads. Again, DSS does not address the agency's explanation; the protester neither refutes the agency's determination that its proposal lacked this information regarding a data migration approach, nor explains why the missing information was not relevant to whether data migration would be successful. In these circumstances, GAO has no basis to question the evaluation. The protest is denied.
