B-299381, LexisNexis, Inc., April 17, 2007

B-299381 Apr 17, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LexisNexis, Inc. protests the award of a contract to West Publishing Corporation under solicitation No. NTSBQ070001, issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for online legal research services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably found the protester's proposal unacceptable, showed favoritism to the awardee by improperly relaxing the technical requirements, and failed to make available a material amendment to the solicitation containing agency answers to questions posed by prospective offerors, including the protester, as well as two changes to the technical requirements. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299381, LexisNexis, Inc., April 17, 2007 Decision Matter of: LexisNexis, Inc. File: B-299381 Date: April 17, 2007 Gad Epstein for the protester. Christopher R. Yukins, Esq., and Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Arnold & Porter, LLP, for West Publishing Corporation, an intervenor. William C. Love, Esq., National Transportation Safety Board, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably found the protester's proposal unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency's decision was reasonable. 2. Protest that agency showed favoritism toward awardee by relaxing technical requirements is denied where the record shows that the agency deleted the requirements only after ascertaining that they were already being supplied, through other means, to the end user, and the agency allowed the protester to substitute products to meet certain other technical requirements. 3. Protest that agency failed to make available a material amendment to the solicitation is denied where the record shows that agency posted the amendment to the FedBizOpps website via a hyperlink to another agency website. DECISION LexisNexis, Inc. protests the award of a contract to West Publishing Corporation under solicitation No. NTSBQ070001, issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for online legal research services.[1] The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably found the protester's proposal unacceptable, showed favoritism to the awardee by improperly relaxing the technical requirements, and failed to make available a material amendment to the solicitation containing agency answers to questions posed by prospective offerors, including the protester, as well as two changes to the technical requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued November 20, 2006, was published on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website. The contract specialist (CS) states that the agency utilizes the Department of Interior, NationalBusinessCenter (DOI/NBC) Electronic Commerce (EC) website to post to FedBizOpps. Prospective offerors may access documents and attachments electronically through FedBizOpps, via a hyperlink to the DOI/NBC EC website. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Decl. of CS at 1-2. The RFP sought proposals for 1 year of online legal research services with four 1'year options. The RFP required that up to two users have access to treatises and practice guides, including American Law Reports (ALR), –attorney-authored articles that provide an analysis of specific legal issue containing detailed discussion of guiding legal principles, distinctions, exceptions, applications and contrary approaches,— AR, Tab 2, RFP at 7, and Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), an encyclopedia of American case law. The RFP also required access to sales and use tax licenses. The RFP required prospective offerors to submit all questions concerning the procurement by December 1. Amendment 1 to the RFP, issued on December 4, contained questions submitted by prospective offerors (including the protester and the eventual awardee, West Publishing) and the agency's responses. The contracting officer (CO) states that the individual tasked with responding to the questions, the CO's technical representative (COTR), had no knowledge of which firm submitted particular questions. AR, CO's Statement of Facts, at 2. It is undisputed that questions 6 and 7 were submitted by West Publishing. Question 6 noted that one of the databases listed in the solicitation, the Congressional Quarterly, was not among the databases in the incumbent contract and asked whether it was required, or merely desirable. AR, Tab 3, amend. 1, at 3. Question 7 posed a similar inquiry regarding the Legal Research Index (LRI). Id. at 4. The agency responded by deleting both requirements. Id. at 3-4. According to the CO, the COTR decided to delete these two requirements only after end users reported that they had other means of accessing the required information. AR, CO's Statement of Facts, at 3.