Alliant Enterprise JV, LLC

B-410352.4 Feb 25, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alliant Enterprise JV, LLC (AEJV), protests the corrective action being taken by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services (WHS), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 874576 for information technology (IT) support services for the Defense Acquisition University. AEJV maintains that the agency's corrective action is improper. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:      Alliant Enterprise JV, LLC File:                B-410352.4 Date:              February 25, 2015 Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group, PLLC, and Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Andrew Bramnick, Esq., Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s corrective action, which includes the clarification of existing price quotations, is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that ambiguities identified as a result of protester’s initial protest are susceptible to correction through the submission of clarifications. DECISION Alliant Enterprise JV, LLC (AEJV), protests the corrective action being taken by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services (WHS), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 874576 for information technology (IT) support services for the Defense Acquisition University.  AEJV maintains that the agency’s corrective action is improper. We deny the protest. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a hybrid fixed-price/labor-hour task order for a base year with four 1-year options against the successful vendor’s General Services Administration Alliant small business government-wide acquisition contract (GWAC).[1]  The solicitation established three evaluation criteria--technical approach, past performance, and price--and stated that task order award was to be made on a best value basis.  The agency received and evaluated quotations from five vendors, including AEJV and SBD Alliant Joint Venture, and ultimately selected the quotation submitted by SBD for task order award.[2] AEJV filed a protest with our Office challenging the propriety of the award to SBD.  AEJV argued that the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ quotations under the technical, past performance, and price factors, and the resulting award decision, were improper.  In response to that protest the agency advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action by reevaluating vendors’ existing quotations[3] (or alternatively by amending the solicitation and seeking revised quotations), and making a new source selection decision.  WHS Email to GAO, Nov. 20, 2014.  Based on the agency’s proposed corrective action, we dismissed AEJV’s protest as academic.  Alliant Enter. JV, LLC, B-410352, B-410352.2, Nov. 21, 2014. WHS thereafter informed vendors that, as part of its corrective action, the agency was seeking clarification of vendors’ prices as follows: The government has decided to re-evaluate proposals and make a new award.  To facilitate the re-evaluation, the Government requests that each offeror submit additional narrative information not exceeding 10 total single-spaced pages, . . . explaining how and why its proposed price (including the not-to-exceed amounts), labor hours and labor categories/mix for each task/[contract line item number] and for the base year and each option year satisfies and is consistent with the solicitation/[performance work statement] requirements.[4] RFQ Amend. 5 (emphasis omitted). In response, AEJV filed this protest objecting to the scope of the agency’s corrective action.  As detailed below, we find no merit in any of the protester’s assertions. Contracting officers in negotiated procurements have broad discretion to take corrective action where the agency determines that such action is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial competition.  The Matthews Group, Inc. t/a TMG Constr. Corp., B-408003.2, B-408004.2, June 17, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 148 at 5; Domain Name Alliance Registry, B-310803.2, Aug. 18, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 168 at 7.  As a general matter, the details of a corrective action are within the sound discretion and judgment of the contracting agency.  Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp., B-286201.6, Aug. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 162 at 4.  We generally will not object to the specific corrective action, so long as it is appropriate to remedy the concern that caused the agency to take corrective action.  Networks Elec. Corp., B-290666.3, Sept.