• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Matter of VetsTec, LLC

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • December 1, 2019
  • Interested Party
  • 0 Comments

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Disposition: Protest Denied

Decided: November 7, 2019

Keywords: Interested Party

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: 

A protest will be denied where the protester is not an interested party to challenge the procurement.

Summary of Facts 

VetsTec, LLC protests the award of a contract to B3 Group, Inc., under RFP No. 36C10B19R0009, issued on May 13, 2019 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for an enterprise telecommunications expense management solution to provide asset and service inventory for the VA. 

The award considered price and non-price factors, including technical, past performance, and veteran’s involvement. The technical factor required offerors to provide a draft Concept of Operations (CONOPS). Under the RFP, if a proposal failed to meet the minimum requirements, it would be rated “unacceptable” and ineligible for award. VetsTec submitted its proposal on June 9.  Subsequently, on June 19, the VA issued an amendment to the RFP, adding a page limit for the technical factor response. Under the amendment, all pages submitted, including cover pages, table of contents, and any attachments, would be counted towards the 40-page limit and any pages after 40 would not be evaluated.

Offerors were given an opportunity to submit a revised proposal, in light of the new page limit.  VetsTec chose not to submit a revised proposal. The VA evaluated the proposals and assigned VetsTec’s proposal two deficiencies, finding that VetsTec’s proposal failed to provide an “EBonding” integration framework capability and failed to include the draft CONOPS. VetsTec’s draft CONOPS was not evaluated because it began after page 40 in the proposal. VetsTec’s proposal was found to be technically unacceptable and thus ineligible for award. B3 received the award and VetsTec filed this protest. 

Basis of Protest 

VetsTec argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and made a flawed award decision. Specifically, VetsTec believes that the VA unreasonably assigned its proposal a deficiency for its alleged failure to address the E-Bonding requirement, claiming that its technical volume was only 39 pages and that, “consistent with government procurement norms, the original RFP did not affirmatively state than an offeror’s TOC [table of contents] or acronyms would be counted towards the 40 page limit.” VetsTec argues that these alleged errors led to a flawed selection decision.

Protest Denied

The GAO concluded that VetsTec is not an interested party to challenge the procurement. The GAO explained that the Bid Protest Regulations define an interested party as “an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract.” However, “a protester is not an interested party where it could not be considered for an award if its protest were sustained.”

Here, the RFP stated that if a proposal was found technically unacceptable, it would not be eligible for award and that the draft CONOPS must be included in the technical volume of an offeror’s proposal, keeping the page limit in mind. However, VetsTec’s technical proposal volume was 45 pages in total, and so the last 5 pages were not evaluated. The draft CONOPS portion of VetsTec’s proposal did not appear until page 42 of its proposal. Therefore, the GAO found that the VA reasonably concluded that VetsTec’s proposal had failed to provide the required draft CONOPS. Under the RFP, a proposal found to be technically unacceptable would not be eligible for award. Since VetsTec’s technically unacceptable proposal rendered it ineligible for award, the GAO determined VetsTec is not an interested party to pursue this protest, since it could not be considered for award even if the protest were sustained.

The GAO denied the protest on this basis.

Tagged

Interested Party

Share

Related Posts

It Ain’t a Party if it Ain’t Interested

March 28, 2022

Matter of Allosense, Inc.

February 7, 2022

Matter of Bluewater Management Group, LLC

October 27, 2020

Matter of Bluehorse Corporation

August 26, 2017

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411