Buffalo Computer Graphics

B-416244 Jul 17, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Buffalo Computer Graphics, Inc., of Blasdell, New York, a small business, protests the award of a contract to NAVSIM Services, Inc., of Buffalo, New York, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70Z02318RP0400100, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG), to supply one or more commercial ship's navigation simulators for the USCG Academy, in New London, Connecticut. Buffalo argues that the USCG improperly released its pricing information to competitors, misevaluated the firm's technical proposal, misevaluated all proposals under the price/cost factor, and misevaluated the awardee's proposal with respect to the limitations on subcontracting clause. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Buffalo Computer Graphics, Inc. File:  B-416244 Date:  July 17, 2018 Kevin Williams, Buffalo Computer Graphics, for the protester. Gabriel D. Soll, Esq., and William H. Butterfield, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency ignored awardee’s proposed prices that were allegedly too low is dismissed where solicitation for fixed-price contract did not provide for price realism assessment, and therefore protest allegations did not state a valid basis of protest.  2.  Protest that solicitation created unfair competition where under earlier canceled solicitation protester’s price had been released to competitors is dismissed as untimely where protest was filed after award of new contract, rather than before the closing date for submission of proposals.  3.  Protest that agency misevaluated proposals is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with evaluation criteria in solicitation.  DECISION Buffalo Computer Graphics, Inc., of Blasdell, New York, a small business, protests the award of a contract to NAVSIM Services, Inc., of Buffalo, New York, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70Z02318RP0400100, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG), to supply one or more commercial ship’s navigation simulators for the USCG Academy, in New London, Connecticut.  Buffalo argues that the USCG improperly released its pricing information to competitors, misevaluated the firm’s technical proposal, misevaluated all proposals under the price/cost factor, and misevaluated the awardee’s proposal with respect to the limitations on subcontracting clause.  We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part.  BACKGROUND The protest concerns USCG’s second effort to award a contract for the ship control and navigation training system (SCANTS) at issue here.  The first was conducted under a different solicitation.  Following the evaluation of proposals, USCG awarded a contract to Buffalo.  After USCG announced the award, including the contract price, multiple competitors filed protests with the agency.  In response, the agency took corrective action by canceling that contract and solicitation.[1] USCG then revised the solicitation as part of its corrective action, and issued the second RFP on January 17, 2018,[2] seeking proposals from eligible small businesses to supply up to five commercial off-the-shelf simulator systems under a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.  Consistent with the identification of the RFP as being set aside for small business, it incorporated by reference the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.219-14.  RFP at 6, 31.  That clause provides that the contractor agrees to perform a specified percentage (which depends on the classification of the contract[3]) of the cost of the contract using the contractor’s own employees.  Id. The RFP described the requirements for the simulators in a PWS.  At issue here, the PWS specified that the simulator include “two (bridge wing) ‘active scene’ alidades to enable 360 degree bearings.”  PWS at 6 (¶ 5.2).  The PWS further specified that the alidades were to be “[s]tandard Navy-type pelorus/alidades with a stimulated independent viewfinder built-in display to enable plotting of bearing lines for navigation fixes and to ascertain bearing drift of contacts.”  Id. at 7 (¶ 5.2.5).