Fairwater Associates

B-414751.2 Sep 11, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Fairwater Associates, of Norfolk, Virginia, protests the terms of solicitation No. N00189-17-R-0050, issued by the Department of the Navy, Navy Supply Systems Command, for the procurement of a user-friendly web-enabled reverse auction tool. Fairwater alleges that the solicitation's requirements are insufficiently defined, and inadequate to promote a uniform and fair competition between non-incumbent contractors and the incumbent firm. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Fairwater Associates File:  B-414751.2 Date:  September 11, 2017 Kip Pagach for the protester. Andrew N. Christopher, Esq., James E. Vaiden, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the terms of the solicitation failed to adequately define requirements and lacked information needed to prepare competitive proposals is denied where the agency responded to a significant number of offeror questions, and the solicitation was adequate for offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. DECISION Fairwater Associates, of Norfolk, Virginia, protests the terms of solicitation No. N00189-17-R-0050, issued by the Department of the Navy, Navy Supply Systems Command, for the procurement of a user-friendly web-enabled reverse auction tool.  Fairwater alleges that the solicitation's requirements are insufficiently defined, and inadequate to promote a uniform and fair competition between non-incumbent contractors and the incumbent firm. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on April 12, 2017, for the purpose of awarding a follow-on contract to fulfil the agency's web-enabled reverse auction tool requirement, currently provided under a task order held by FedBid, Inc.  The resultant contract is expected to be a no-cost contract, under which the contractor will be compensated through transaction fees paid directly by vendors that receive awards in procurements conducted through the reverse auction tool.  The solicitation provided that the award would be made on a best-value basis considering three evaluation factors:  (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price.  The solicitation included a performance work statement (PWS) describing the operational requirements of the reverse auction tool.  In addition to the operational requirements, the PWS requires that the contractor provide training on the tool to 600 users across 50 worksites, and provide technical and customer help desk support from "Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM."  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Solicitation, at 55.  The PWS reinforced that the contract was to be a no-cost contract, and that "the government shall not be liable for any payment arising under the contract."  Id. at 54.  The solicitation also included historic transaction data from the incumbent contract, which identified the total number of transactions and total value of transactions from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2016.  On April 26, potential offerors submitted questions concerning the solicitation to the agency.  The agency provided answers to the questions, and issued four amendments to the solicitation, which detailed the questions asked and the agency's answers, provided additional historical data, and updated the PWS and the solicitation's instructions and evaluation criteria.  As relevant, multiple questions requested supplemental information on various PWS sections, and requested additional historic data from the incumbent contract. For example, question 6 requested that the agency provide information concerning historic invoicing issues, such as monthly and annual late payment or default rates, and government support for recovery in the event of non-payment of reverse auction fees.  In response to question 6, the agency reiterated that all fees to be paid are matters between the vendors and the reverse auction provider, and that no payments would be made by the Navy.  Questions 7 through 9 concerned the agency's training requirements.  In response to these questions, the agency provided an overview of information concerning training requirements, objectives, locations, and system user types.  In addition, the agency advised that it was the contractor's responsibility to train Navy contracting personnel with various level of experience to understand and know how to conduct a reverse auction using the contractor's reverse auction tool.  Finally, question 10 concerned a request for historical data on technical support and customer service help desk demand.  The Navy indicated that this information was not available.  Also in response to the questions, the agency provided more comprehensive historica...