Granite Telecommunications, LLC (B-423102.3)

You should not care.

Category: Price realism, technical evaluation

Date: 21 July 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423102.3

In this postaward protest, Granite Telecommunications, LLC, challenged the VA’s task order award to Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation LLC (MetTel) for plain old telephone service (POTS) replacement services under a managed network services RFP. Granite raised three primary grounds: that MetTel’s significantly lower price should have been found technically unacceptable as evidencing a lack of understanding; that Granite’s own proposal was underappreciated and should have received multiple additional strengths; and that the VA improperly made a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) award instead of a proper best value tradeoff. Notably, the solicitation required only price reasonableness—not price realism—and both proposals were rated “acceptable” with low performance risk and no technical discriminators.

Solicitation did not provide for price realism: Granite contended the awardee’s low price indicated a lack of understanding. GAO dismissed this basis because the solicitation explicitly did not contemplate a price realism evaluation, which is required for consideration of whether a low price is technically suspect in a fixed-price context.

Evaluators’ qualitative judgment and assignment of strengths: Granite argued the VA ignored allegedly superior aspects of its “EPIK” solution and OEM status. GAO found the evaluators reasonably considered these proposal features but determined they merely met requirements and did not warrant strengths, consistent with the agency’s broad discretion.

Best value tradeoff and alleged LPTA conversion: GAO found that the VA’s Source Selection Authority documented a qualitative comparison, explicitly recognized Granite’s strengths regarding veteran involvement, and made a rational tradeoff prioritizing price over minor advantages per the RFP’s stated weighting.

The protest was dismissed in part (regarding price realism) and denied in part (regarding the technical and tradeoff evaluation).

Digest

Protest contending awardee should have been evaluated as technically unacceptable because its low price demonstrated a lack of understanding of the requirements is dismissed for failing to state a valid basis of protest where solicitation did not provide for a price realism evaluation.Protest arguing agency failed to assess multiple strengths in protester's proposal is denied where the record reflects the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The protester's disagreement with the agency's assessment of the merits of the firm's proposal does not provide a basis to sustain the protest.Protest alleging agency made award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, rather than conducting a tradeoff as required by the solicitation, is denied where the record shows the agency considered the relative benefits of the competing proposals and made award using the tradeoff process contemplated by the solicitation.