LexisNexis

B-413612 Nov 29, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lexis Nexis (Lexis), of Miamisburg, Ohio, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. DU100A-16-R-0001, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for online legal research (OLR) database services. Lexis contends that the agency's responses to offerors' questions were misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. 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:  LexisNexis File:  B-413612 Date:  November 29, 2016 Stephanie Wilson, Esq., and Terrence M. O’Connor, Esq., Berenzweig Leonard, LLP, for the protester. Julie Cannatti, Esq., and Blythe I. Rodgers, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that an agency’s responses to prospective offerors’ questions are misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete is denied where the solicitation reasonably describes the work to be performed. DECISION Lexis Nexis (Lexis), of Miamisburg, Ohio, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. DU100A-16-R-0001, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for online legal research (OLR) database services.  Lexis contends that the agency’s responses to offerors’ questions were misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 19, 2016, HUD issued the RFP in accordance with the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12.  RFP at 149, 151.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA), under which fixed-price and cost-type task orders would be issued, for a one-year base period and four one-year option periods.  Id. at 151-53.  The performance work statement (PWS) sought a contractor to provide OLR database and other related services, to include: (1) OLR services; (2) investigative records search services; (3) online court docket services; and (4) associated support services and training.  PWS at 158.  The PWS outlined the scope of work and specific tasks that the contractor would be required to perform for each service.  PWS at 166-175.  Additionally, the RFP provided the estimated number of users for each service and required offerors to submit total pricing based on the anticipated quantity of users.  RFP at 222.  As relevant here, the RFP anticipated 2,410 users for OLR services.  Id. On August 5, prior to the closing time for receipt of initial proposals, the agency responded to questions from offerors.  Among other things, the agency was asked whether the RFP was a follow-on requirement and, if so, which firm was currently providing HUD with the four services contemplated by the RFP.[2]  AR, Tab 4, RFP Q&A, 139, 141.  The agency informed offerors that the solicitation was a follow-on requirement and identified Lexis as the incumbent contractor, and provided the contract number for the existing contract.  Id. at 139.  HUD also stated that Lexis was providing OLR services and support services, including investigative records search services, and disclosed the total contract value of $1,788,578.  Id. at 141.  The agency also informed offerors that PACER was currently providing HUD with online court docket services under a separate contract, valued at $75,000.  Id. at 142.  In response to a question regarding the offices that might require access to the OLR‑services BPA and the anticipated number of users of OLR services, the agency reiterated that it anticipated 2,410 OLR users, and notified offerors that at least 10 potential HUD offices could access the services under the solicitation.  Id. After receiving the agency’s responses, and prior to closing, Lexis filed an agency-level protest raising its concern that some of the agency’s responses were misleading, and that the allegedly incomplete and inaccurate incumbent data could cause vendors to price their proposals too low.  Protest, Exh. 3, Lexis Agency Protest, at 3.  Specifically, Lexis asserted that the agency should clarify that the estimated users and the number of offices being served under Lexis’s incumbent contract (approximately 600 users and one office) was significantly different from the current solicitation’s requirements.  Id.  Lexis also requested that the agency provide the name, contract number, and value of current incumbent contracts being performed in the 10 HUD offices that could be potential buyers under the BPA.  Id.