Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc.

B-415725.3 Dec 06, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., of Boston, Massachusetts, protests its exclusion from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0018919R0041 issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, to provide maintenance, repair, and operations supplies and materials. The protester argues that its proposal was improperly excluded from further consideration by the agency. 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:  Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc. File:  B-415725.3 Date:  December 6, 2019 Gary J. Campbell, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., and Matthew Koehl, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson-US, LLP, for the protester. Andrew Christopher, Esq., Leslie Jefferson, Esq., Dana Smith, Esq., James P. Winthrop, Esq., and Philip Rappmund, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the exclusion of the protester’s proposal from a competition for the issuance of a blanket purchase agreement against relevant federal supply schedule contracts is denied where the record shows that the protester’s price proposal failed to meet material terms of the solicitation, and was reasonably excluded on that basis. DECISION Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., of Boston, Massachusetts, protests its exclusion from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0018919R0041 issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, to provide maintenance, repair, and operations supplies and materials.  The protester argues that its proposal was improperly excluded from further consideration by the agency. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 2, 2019, sought proposals from holders of General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 51V – Hardware Superstore contracts for the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to provide maintenance, repair, and operations supplies and materials to four installations located in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command’s Mid-Atlantic, Northeast Region.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP, at 13, 27.  The procurement was to be conducted in accordance with procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405-3 for the establishment of BPAs under schedule contracts for supplies or services.  Id. at 3. Proposals were to be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of FAR provision 52.212-2, with award to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and the following equally-weighted non-price factors:  technical, and past performance.  Id. at 13-14.  The technical factor included two equally-weighted subfactors:  performance approach and transition/phase-in plan.  Id. at 14.  When combined, the non-price factors were to be significantly more important than price.  Id.  Price was to be evaluated based on total evaluated price, which was calculated by adding the offeror’s proposed total discounted service price and proposed total test market basket (TMB) price.  Id. at 13, 17.  Three proposals were received by the agency in response to the solicitation, including one from Noble.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 9.  Based on an initial evaluation of technical proposals, one of the offerors was found to be technically unacceptable, and was not further evaluated.  Id. at 9.  While Noble’s proposal was found to be technically acceptable, the contracting officer did note discrepancies in the firm’s proposal, namely, that Noble’s proposal did not separately price services, as required by the solicitation, and various items in the TMB were priced higher than on the protester’s authorized FSS pricelist.  Id. at 9-10.  The contracting officer determined that exchanges with the two remaining offerors were “necessary to allow each offeror to make necessary revisions in order to proceed to award.”  Id. at 11. During exchanges with Noble, the contracting officer identified various discussion topics under the non-price evaluation factors, and as relevant to the firm’s price proposal, the contracting officer notified Noble of the following:  (1) the price proposal must contain separately priced services; (2) the hyperlinks in the catalog were not working and should be updated; and (3) the pricelist submission must be the authorized FSS pricelist as required by the RFP and consistent with prices available on GSA Advantage.[1]  Id.