Noble Supply and Logistics

B-411229.2 Jun 22, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Graybar, of Lanham, Maryland, protests award by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) of a supply services contract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPM8E3-14-R-0004. Graybar contends that DLA evaluated its proposal in bad faith, erred in its evaluation of items from the price evaluation list (PEL), and improperly evaluated SAIC's past performance. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Graybar File: B-411229.2 Date: June 22, 2015 Ron Drescher, for the protester. William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., and Christina K. Scopin, Esq., Venable, LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, the intervenor. Nicole M. Franchetti, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where there is no evidence that the agency acted in bad faith, the agency did not err in its price evaluation, and the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance was reasonable. DECISION Graybar, of Lanham, Maryland, protests award by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) of a supply services contract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPM8E3-14-R-0004. Graybar contends that DLA evaluated its proposal in bad faith, erred in its evaluation of items from the price evaluation list (PEL), and improperly evaluated SAIC’s past performance.[1] Protest at 1-3. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2013, DLA issued the RFP, which anticipates the award of two 5‑year, indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) supply items and related services, to be performed in DLA’s southwest region. The two anticipated contracts will cover different geographic areas within DLA’s southwest region, which have been termed zone 1 and zone 2. RFP at 7. The solicitation permitted offerors to submit proposals for one or both zones, although the offerors were precluded from receiving the contracts for both zones, in order to ensure the presence of multiple MRO supply sources within DLA’s southwest region. Id. at 8. The solicitation anticipated the issuance of fixed-price orders. This protest concerns the award for zone 2. Eight offerors submitted proposals for each of the zone 1 and zone 2 contracts by the closing date of December 19, 2013. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP, Amend. 0005; Tab 13, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) (Feb. 5, 2015), at 1. Five offerors, including Graybar and SAIC, were included in the competitive range for each zone. Tab 13, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) (Feb. 5, 2015), at 1. The RFP explained that the non-price evaluation included two factors: (1) past performance-confidence assessment (factor I), and (2) technical evaluation (factor II). RFP at 71. The past performance-confidence assessment was more important than the technical evaluation. Id. No subfactors were identified under the past performance evaluation factor, but offerors were informed that the agency would assess both the relevance and quality of an offeror’s past performance. RFP at 71. The solicitation stated that award would be made using a best value tradeoff, with non-price evaluation factors being significantly more important than price. Id. As offerors’ non-price ratings became more equal, price increased in importance. Id. As relevant here, the solicitation stated that the agency would “consider the degree to which the offeror met the terms of delivery, quality standards, socio-economic/ subcontracting goals. . . .” AR, Tab 8, RFP, Amend. 0007, at 2 (emphasis in original). The agency’s source selection plan, i.e., its internal evaluation guidance, provided that, within the past performance factor, a performance rating of outstanding would be awarded if, inter alia, “the offeror exceeded their subcontracting goals,” while a performance rating of good would be awarded if “the offeror has met or exceeded their subcontracting goals and/or worked with the Contracting Officer/small business representatives and made a good faith effort to meet the goals.” AR, Tab 11, Source Selection Plan, at 11. The solicitation also required offerors to “submit a firm fixed Acquisition Ceiling Price expressed as a per unit dollar amount for a minimum of 90% of the items in the PEL for each pricing period.” RFP at 67 (emphasis in original). As relevant here, in relation to the agency’s price evaluation, the solicitation required offerors to submit their prices for a minimum of 90 percent of the items on the agency’s PEL.