Piton Science and Technology, LLC

B-414634 Jul 28, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Piton Science and Technology (Piton), of Oakton, Virginia, protests the contract awards to ten awardees pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W911S0-16-R-0002 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for support services for the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (USCAC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Piton Science and Technology File:  B-414634 Date:  July 28, 2017 William S. Murphy, Piton Science and Technology, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., ProTorae Law PLLC, for Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC, an intervenor. Major Christopher M. Coy, Scott N. Flesch, Esq., and Major Stephen P. Smith, Department of the Army, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions with the protester is denied where record shows that the agency adequately led the protester into the areas requiring revision. DECISION Piton Science and Technology (Piton), of Oakton, Virginia, protests the contract awards to ten awardees pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W911S0-16-R-0002 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for support services for the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (USCAC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On September 30, 2016, the agency issued the RFP on an unrestricted basis seeking contractors to provide non-personal services to help the USCAC develop and produce education strategies and training for the U.S. Army.  RFP at 1, 2.  The RFP stated that the government would award approximately nine fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts on a lowest-priced, technically-acceptable (LPTA) basis considering price and non-price factors.[1]  Id. at 2, 75.  The RFP also reserved approximately six awards for small business concerns.  Id. at 75.  Additionally, the RFP stated that the agency intended to evaluate proposals without discussions, but reserved the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary by the contracting officer.  Id. For the price factor, offerors were required to complete a pricing worksheet that provided their fully-burdened hourly rate, inclusive of profit, for each labor category listed in the pricing worksheet.  Id. at 73.  As relevant here, the RFP stated that an offeror's total evaluated price would be evaluated in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.404-1(b) to determine whether prices were reasonable, complete, and accurate.  Id. at 77-78. In response to the solicitation, the agency received proposals from 26 offerors, including Piton.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Abstract of Offerors, at 1.  After evaluating proposals, the agency established a competitive range and engaged in discussions with certain offerors, including Piton, whose technical proposal was evaluated as acceptable.[2]  AR, Tab 11, Competitive Range Determination, at 7-8.  The Army provided a discussion question to Piton that stated, "[y]our total price appears to be high. . . .  Recommend looking at your proposed pricing."  AR, Tab 13, Agency Discussions with Piton, at 3.  The discussion question also identified a labor category that appeared to be significantly high.  Id.  In response, Piton lowered its price.  AR, Tab 28, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 54.  After receiving and evaluating final proposal revisions (FPR), the Army made award to the ten LPTA offerors whose prices were determined to be fair and reasonable.  AR, Tab 27, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 11.  Five of the awardees were small businesses, and the other five were large businesses.[3]  Id.