The protester claimed the agency muffed the evaluation of experience. The agency assigned the protester and the awardee the highest possible ratings under the experience factor. The protester said this was outrageous because its own experience exceeded the agency’s requirements by orders of magnitude while the awardee’s did not. GAO basically said, “So what?” The solicitation did not give extra weight to experience that greatly exceeded the agency’s requirements.
Veterans Care Medical Equipment, LLC, GAO B-420726, B-420726.2
Background
The Department of Veterans Affairs issued a solicitation seeking home oxygen and ventilator services. The solicitation was set aside for SDVOSBs. The VA received proposals from four offerors, including Veterans Care Medical Equipment and Mid-Cities Home Medical Delivery Service. The VA awarded the contract to Mid-Cities, finding that its lower-priced proposal offered the best value. Veterans Care protested.
Analysis
Experience
Veterans Care argued that the VA erred in assigning Mid-Cities and Veterans Care the highest rating under the experience factor. Veterans Care maintained that its own experience exceeded the solicitation’s requirements by orders of magnitude while Mid-Cities experience was far more limited.
But GAO noted that the evaluation criteria did not give additional weight to experience that significantly exceeded the agency’s requirements. In any event, the SSA had expressly recognized Veterans Care’s experience in the best value determination. The SSA reasonably determined that the additional experience did not provide much additional value.
Evaluation of Joint Venture Partners Experience
Veterans Care had submitted its proposal as an SBA-approved mentor-protege joint venture. Veterans Care contended that the agency violated SBA’s regulations when it assigned its proposal a major weakness due to the protege partner’s lack of experience.
GAO, however, found that the VA had properly assessed the experience of the protege. The regulation at issue, S 13 C.F.R. 125.8(e), requires agencies to consider the individual capabilities of joint venture partners if the joint venture itself does not demonstrate the required experience. Here, Veterans Care was an unpopulated joint venture without experience The agency appropriately evaluated the experience of each partner and reasonably found that the protege lacked relevant experience
Responsibility Determination
Veterans Care alleged the agency should not have found Mid-Cities responsible because Mid-Cities would fail to comply with the solicitation’s limitation on subcontracting. GAO., however, found that an offeror need not affirmatively demonstrate compliance with a limitation on subcontracting in its proposal. Rather, when, as here, an offeror certifies compliance, the agency may assume compliance.
Veterans Care is represented by David F. Dowd of Potomac Law Group. The intervenor, Mid-Cities, is represented by Peter B. Ford, Katherine B. Burrows, and Eric A. Valle of PilieroMazza PLLC. The agency is represented by Daniel J. McFeely of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Sarah T. Zaffina and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
