Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is dismissed. The solicitation required that technical proposals adhere to a 40 page limit, but critical portions of the protester’s proposal were located after page 40 and thus not considered by the agency. GAO found that the agency (1) reasonably declined to consider anything past page 40 of the protester’s proposal, and (2) properly found the protester ineligible for award. Because the protester was ineligible, it was not an interested party and thus could not maintain a bid protest.
VetsTec LLC bid on a contract to provide VA with enterprise telecommunications expense management. After bids were submitted, VA amended the solicitation, stating that the page limit for technical proposals was 40 pages. The amendment stated that all pages, including preliminary pages, like tables of contents and title pages, would be included in the page count. Offerors were given an opportunity to submit revised proposals in light of the amendment. VetsTec, however, declined to submit a revised proposal.
VA found VetsTec’s proposal ineligible because its technical volume exceeded the 40 page limit. Offerors were required to include a Concept of Operations in their technical proposal that reflected how their proposed solution would work in the VA environment. VetsTec Concept of Operations did not appear until page 42 of its technical proposal. Thus, VA did not consider the Concept of Operations, and found the proposal deficient for failing to include a material requirement. VA awarded the contract to B3 Group. VetsTec protested, claiming that VA’s technical evaluation was flawed, and that the agency had unreasonably applied the page limitations.
GAO dismissed the protest. The amendment had clearly stated that all pages submitted in the technical volume would count toward the page limit. VetsTec’s Concept of Operations fell outside of that page limit, so the agency could not consider it. Without the required Concept of Operations, VetsTec was ineligible for award. Because it was ineligible for award, VetsTec was not an interested party that could maintain a protest. To the extent VetsTech was challenging the page limit, that was an objection to the terms of the solicitation that should have been raised before the proposal deadline.
VetsTec is represented by Thomas K. David, Kenneth Brody, and Katherine A. David of David, Brody & Dondershire, LLP. The intervenor, B3, is represented by Laurel Hockey, David S. Cohen, Norah D. Molnar, Daniel Strouse, and John J. O’Brien of Cordatis LLP. The agency is represented by Colin Nash and John W. Tangalos of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Joshua R. Gillerman and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
