Jacobs Technology, Inc.

B-410441.5 Aug 26, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TRAX International Corp., Inc., of Las Vegas, Nevada, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the award of a contract to Jacobs Technology, Inc., of Tullahoma, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124R-13-R-0001, which was issued by the Department of the Army, for mission test support services at the Army Yuma Proving Ground. We deny the request. We deny the request. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: TRAX International Corporation--Costs File: B-410441.5 Date: August 26, 2015 Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan, Esq., John E. McCarthy Jr., Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Robert Sneckenberg, Esq., and Jason Crawford, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. MAJ Michael G. Pond, MAJ Nancy J. Lewis, Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Reimbursement of protest grounds is not recommended where agency did not unduly delay taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. DECISION TRAX International Corp., Inc., of Las Vegas, Nevada, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the award of a contract to Jacobs Technology, Inc., of Tullahoma, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124R-13-R-0001, which was issued by the Department of the Army, for mission test support services at the Army Yuma Proving Ground. We deny the request. BACKGROUND On May 16, 2013, the Army issued the RFP for a cost-plus-award-fee contract, with fixed-price and cost-reimbursable line items, for a base year and three 1-year options. RFP at 6-13. The agency received proposals from four offerors, including TRAX and Jacobs. Agency Report (AR), Tab 45, Source Selection Decision Document, at 3. After evaluating proposals, the agency concluded that Jacobs’ proposal represented the best value to the government, and on September 10, 2014, the agency awarded the contract to Jacobs. Contracting Officer Statement at 3. On September 22, TRAX filed an initial protest with our Office. TRAX’s protest raised numerous challenges to the agency’s technical and cost evaluation of its and the awardee’s proposals.[1] In addition, TRAX argued that the nature of the agency’s exchanges with TRAX during the procurement constituted discussions, and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. TRAX also asserted that the agency failed to resolve an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) concern relating to the awardee. On October 17, in accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.3(c), the Army provided the protester with a list of the documents which the agency intended to produce and withhold from its agency report. Specifically, with regard to TRAX’s allegations regarding the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal, the agency stated that it planned to produce the awardee’s technical and cost proposals, but would not produce the agency’s clarification questions to the awardee. The protester objected to the agency’s refusal to provide the agency’s clarification questions to the awardee, arguing that the clarification questions were relevant to TRAX’s challenge to the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical and cost proposals, and therefore, should be provided with the agency report. Our Office agreed that the agency’s clarification questions to the awardee were relevant to the agency’s technical and cost evaluation, and concluded that the Army was required to provide the protester with both the agency’s clarification questions to the awardee, as well the awardee’s responses thereto. In its report responding to the protest, the Army specifically responded to each of TRAX’s protest allegations. With regard to TRAX’s assertion that the agency’s exchanges with TRAX constituted discussions, the agency argued that its exchanges with TRAX were clarifications, not discussions, because TRAX was not provided with any opportunity to revise its proposal in response to the communications. AR at 17-18. In addition, as instructed, the Army provided the agency’s clarifications with the awardee. AR, Tabs 77, 78, 80, 82. On November 3, TRAX filed its comments in response to the agency report, as well as supplemental protest allegations.