Monbo Group International

Decision

Matter of: Monbo Group International

File: B‑421554

Date: June 22, 2023

DIGEST

1. Protest of agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the proposal did not comply with solicitation requirements.

2. Protest of agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal is dismissed where protester is not an interested party to raise such challenges and where the protest does not set forth a sufficient legal or factual basis.

Monbo Group International, a small business of Owings Mills, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Frontier Strategies, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K00‑23‑R‑0002, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Medical Command, for biomedical equipment technician services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals under the technical and price factors.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2022, the agency issued the RFP, seeking biomedical equipment technicians (BMETs) and other personnel in support of the Department of Biomedical Engineering Services at Brooke Army Medical Center, located at Joint Base San Antonio, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; see Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The solicitation was set aside for award under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program.[1] COS at 1; AR Tab 15, RFP at 1.[2]

The solicitation provided that award would be made on a lowest‑price, technically acceptable basis. AR, Tab 12, RFP attach. 1 at 5.[3] The non‑price evaluation factors were technical capability, past performance, and compensation plan. The technical capability factor was divided into three subfactors: PWS compliance, recruitment, and transition plan. Id. In order to be eligible for award, a proposal was required to earn a rating of acceptable “on all technical subfactors, and on the overall factor.” Id. A proposal would earn a rating of acceptable under the technical capability factor and its subfactors if the “[p]roposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Id. at 5. A rating of unacceptable was defined as “[p]roposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Id.

The agency received eight timely proposals, including proposals from Monbo and Frontier. COS at 2. Monbo’s proposal was the lowest‑priced. See AR, Tab 22, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 6.

The agency determined that Monbo’s proposal was unacceptable under the PWS compliance and recruitment subfactors of the technical capability factor.[4] Id. at 7‑8. As Monbo’s proposal was found to be unacceptable under two subfactors, the agency assigned the proposal a rating of unacceptable for the technical capability factor as a whole. Id. The source selection authority (SSA) explained that these unacceptable ratings rendered Monbo’s proposal ineligible for award, and that the agency therefore did not evaluate the proposal under the past performance or compensation plan evaluation factors. Id. at 11‑12.

Ultimately, the SSA determined that Frontier’s proposal was the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable proposal. Id. at 18‑19. On March 10, 2023, the agency notified Monbo of its award of the contract to Frontier. AR, Tab 23, Unsuccessful Offeror Notice. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

Monbo challenges the agency’s determination that its proposal was technically unacceptable, as well as the agency’s determination that the awardee’s proposal was technically acceptable and reasonably priced. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the protester’s challenges to the evaluation of its own proposal, and we dismiss the protest with respect to the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal.[5]

Evaluation of the Protester’s Proposal

The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found its proposal to be unacceptable under the PWS compliance and recruitment subfactors. The agency responds that its evaluation was reasonable and supported by the record.

When reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals, nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion. AECOM Mgmt. Servs., Inc., B‑417639.2, B‑417639.3, Sept. 16, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 322 at 9. Accordingly, we will review the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and with applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Id. A protester’s disagreement, without more, does not form the basis for us to conclude that an evaluation was unreasonable. See DynCorp Int’l, LLC, B‑412451, B‑412451.2, Feb. 16, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 75 at 8.

Further, it is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a well‑written proposal, with adequately detailed information that clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements and allows for a meaningful review by the procuring agency. Morgan Bus. Consulting, LLC, B‑418165.6, B‑418165.9, Apr. 15, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 171 at 13. Where it fails to do so, the offeror runs the risk that the procuring agency will evaluate its proposal unfavorably. Id.

Here, the agency’s evaluators identified numerous ways in which the protester’s proposal failed to meet the solicitation requirements and thus merited a rating of unacceptable under the PWS compliance and recruitment subfactors. AR, Tab 22, SSD at 8; see AR, Tab 20, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 2‑4. We have reviewed the protester’s challenges to each of these evaluation findings and see no reason to conclude that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. We address representative examples below.

With respect to the PWS compliance subfactor, the solicitation instructed offerors to “[e]xplain how [they] intend[] to satisfy the minimum requirements of the [PWS],” and specifically directed that PWS paragraph 5 “shall be addressed in detail.” RFP attach. 1 at 3. Paragraph 5 of the PWS identified six labor classifications to be provided under the contract, and listed specific knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) required for each classification. See AR, Tab 7, PWS at 7‑12. For the BMET I labor category, the KSAs included technical knowledge such as “[k]nowledge and ability to apply electronic circuitry and technical aspects of the operation, repair and maintenance of electronic [medical devices and equipment],” and “[k]nowledge of how external forces . . . may affect the adequate functioning of electronic devices.” Id at 7‑8. These KSAs also included skill in using specific software products, medical knowledge such as “basic anatomy, physiology, and medical terminology,” interpersonal and communication skills, knowledge of relevant regulations, and strength and dexterity requirements. Id. at 8.

Monbo’s proposal contained only a two‑sentence description of its approach to meeting the requirements of PWS paragraph 5, which made no mention either of the concept of KSAs or of any specific KSAs identified in the PWS. AR, Tab 16, Monbo Technical Proposal at 8. The agency concluded that this did not sufficiently address Monbo’s approach to PWS paragraph 5. AR, Tab 22, SSD at 8 (“Monbo . . . has not addressed knowledge, skills, and abilities [for BMET I] as per PWS Para 5.2.3”); see AR, Tab 17, Monbo SSEB Evaluation at 2 (“offeror . . . do[es] not mention KSA’s which are referenced through [paragraph] 5 in the PWS. This is unacceptable.”).

The protester argues that the agency’s conclusion was unreasonable because the RFP did not require staff resumes and because Monbo’s proposal contained references to its proposed staff’s certifications and “expertise.” Comments at 5. We find these arguments unavailing.

First, the agency did not find Monbo’s proposal unacceptable because of a lack of resumes; the agency found the proposal unacceptable for not discussing how Monbo would meet the KSA requirements of PWS paragraph 5. In this regard, the solicitation clearly required offerors to discuss their approach to this PWS paragraph “in detail.” RFP attach. 1 at 3. Monbo, however, elected to address this paragraph in two sentences that did not mention KSAs. The protester bore the risk that the agency would evaluate this cursory explanation unfavorably. See Morgan Bus. Consulting, supra at 13. We see nothing unreasonable in the agency’s conclusion that a brief reference to staff certifications does not constitute a discussion of KSAs‑-let alone the detailed discussion of compliance with PWS paragraph 5 required by the RFP.

We also reject Monbo’s argument that its proposal actually addressed KSAs. The only section of Monbo’s proposal that addresses the expertise of its proposed staff identifies certain equipment with which Monbo’s staff has prior experience.[6] AR, Tab 16, Monbo Technical Proposal at 7. However, this section does not discuss the specific technical KSAs identified in PWS paragraph 5, and is wholly silent regarding the KSAs unrelated to equipment repair, e.g., KSAs relating to software, interpersonal skills, and medical knowledge. Id. In any event, this statement is located in the section of Monbo’s proposal addressing PWS paragraph 4 (contractor furnished items and services), not PWS paragraph 5. Id. Consistent with an offeror’s burden to submit a well‑written proposal, an agency is not required to search for information about an offeror’s approach to one solicitation requirement in the proposal section addressing another. See Morgan Bus. Consulting, supra at 13.

As the solicitation noted, a proposal that “[did] not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation” would be found unacceptable. RFP attach. 1 at 5. Since the agency reasonably concluded that Monbo’s proposal did not address the applicable KSA requirements, we find reasonable the agency’s determination that Monbo’s proposal was unacceptable under the PWS compliance subfactor.[7]

With respect to the recruitment subfactor, the RFP specifically instructed offerors to “[d]iscuss the San Antonio biomedical technician market to include challenges, trends and strategies necessary to provide the services required.” Id. at 3. The agency concluded that Monbo failed to meet this requirement. AR, Tab 22, SSD at 8. Upon review of Monbo’s proposal, we find the agency’s conclusion reasonable.

In this respect, Monbo’s proposal does not contain the words “San Antonio.” See, generally, AR, Tab 16, Monbo Technical Proposal. In discussing the recruitment subfactor, the proposal describes the scale and geographic breadth of Monbo’s recruitment resources, but does not discuss challenges, trends, or strategies specific to the San Antonio BMET market. Id. at 9.

Accordingly, we find that the agency reasonably concluded that Monbo’s proposal did not meet the solicitation requirement to discuss the San Antonio BMET market. The agency’s resultant determination that the proposal was unacceptable under the recruitment subfactor was therefore also reasonable.

Having determined that the agency reasonably found Monbo’s proposal unacceptable under two evaluation subfactors, we dismiss the remainder of the protester’s challenges to the evaluation of its own proposal. The solicitation here provided that an unacceptable rating on any technical subfactor would render a proposal ineligible for award. RFP attach. 1 at 5. Since the protester has not explained how it would be in line for award in light of its two unacceptable ratings, we find that the protester has failed to establish competitive prejudice with respect to its remaining challenges to the evaluation of its proposal. RK Consultancy Servs., Inc., B‑420030, B‑420030.2, Nov. 3, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 356 at 4. Prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest. Armorworks Enters., LLC, B‑400394.3, Mar. 31, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 79 at 3.

Evaluation of the Awardee’s Proposal

The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the past performance and price factors. The agency requests that we dismiss these protest arguments as speculative, for failing to state a valid basis of protest, and because the protester is not an interested party. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss all of the protester’s challenges to the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal.

As an initial matter, we find that Monbo is not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protester must be an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1). A protester is not an interested party where it could not be considered for an award if its protest were sustained. See JSF Sys., LLC, B‑410217, Oct. 30, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 328 at 4. Since, as discussed above, we find that the agency reasonably determined that Monbo’s proposal was technically unacceptable, it follows that the protester was properly found ineligible for award. Dee Monbo, CPA, B‑412820, May 23, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 140 at 4. As such, the protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal.[8] Id.

In any event, we also find that the protest does not set forth sufficient factual or legal grounds for its challenges to the agency’s evaluation of Frontier’s proposal.

The protester asserts that the agency should have found the awardee’s proposal unacceptable under the past performance factor because the awardee has no record of relevant past performance. Protest at 3. However, the RFP stated that offerors without a record of past performance would be assigned a rating of acceptable under this factor.[9] RFP attach. 1 at 5‑6. Further, the protester alleges only that the awardee had not performed any prior contracts for the federal government,[10] but the solicitation defined relevant past performance to include similar services “in the public and/or private sector.” Id. at 3. The protester does not allege that the awardee has no relevant prior work in the private sector or for non-federal public sector entities. Protest at 3. For these reasons, even if we were to accept, as true, the protester’s assertion of the awardee’s lack of federal past performance, we would not find that this establishes an error in the agency’s evaluation. See Metson Marine Servs., Inc., B‑413392, Oct. 19, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 313 at 5. The protest therefore fails to set forth sufficient factual and legal grounds for its challenge to the evaluation of Frontier’s past performance.

Monbo also raises various price challenges, including that the awardee “overbid” on the solicitation, that the awardee is therefore “ineligible” for award, and that the award is “not a good use of taxpayer money.” Protest at 4. We interpret the protester’s argument as a challenge to agency’s evaluation of the reasonableness of the awardee’s price; i.e., an allegation that the awardee’s price was unreasonably high. See i4 Now Solutions, Inc., B‑412369, Jan. 27, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 47 at 9. The only support that the protester provides for this argument is the fact that the awardee’s proposed price was higher than the protester’s own proposed price. See Protest at 2. A protest that alleges that an awardee’s price is unreasonable solely because it is more expensive that the protester’s price, without providing any basis to conclude that the awardee’s price is unreasonably high, does not state a valid basis for protest. Univ. of Maryland, B‑416682, Oct. 24, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 366 at 5. For these reasons, we dismiss all of the protest’s challenges to the agency’s evaluation of Frontier’s proposal.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel