IDEAL Industries, Inc.

B-416416 Jul 26, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IDEAL Industries, Inc., of Sycamore, Illinois, protests the corrective action taken by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, in response to an agency-level protest filed by another offeror (Offeror A) against the award of a contract to IDEAL under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-16-R-0092 for tool kits. The protester alleges that the agency's corrective action--which consisted of terminating IDEAL's contract, and reopening and amending the RFP--was unreasonable. The protester also complains that the release of its pricing information from the original contract without releasing the pricing of other offerors improperly puts IDEAL at a material disadvantage. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  IDEAL Industries, Inc. File:  B-416416 Date:  July 26, 2018 James W. Kim, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery LLP, for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Misty L. Caldwell-Colen, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of corrective action taken in response to a post-award, agency-level protest is denied where the corrective action was within the agency’s discretion and appropriate to remedy the concerns raised in the agency-level protest. DECISION IDEAL Industries, Inc., of Sycamore, Illinois, protests the corrective action taken by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, in response to an agency-level protest filed by another offeror (Offeror A) against the award of a contract to IDEAL under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV‑16‑R‑0092 for tool kits.  The protester alleges that the agency’s corrective action--which consisted of terminating IDEAL’s contract, and reopening and amending the RFP--was unreasonable.  The protester also complains that the release of its pricing information from the original contract without releasing the pricing of other offerors improperly puts IDEAL at a material disadvantage. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on October 30, 2017, sought proposals for a contractor to supply general mechanics tool kits (GMTKs), which are military‑use containers packed with specialized hand tools for the maintenance of vehicle platforms.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, at 2; AR at 1 n.1.  The RFP contemplated the award of a single, fixed‑price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract with five 1-year ordering periods.  RFP at 1; AR at 1. The RFP stated that award would be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis and proposals would be evaluated based on two factors:  technical and price.  RFP at 56.  The RFP advised that each proposal would be evaluated to determine a total evaluated price, which would include an assessment of price reasonableness.  Id.  The RFP further advised that the agency would then conduct a technical evaluation on an acceptable/not acceptable basis on the lowest-priced proposal only, continuing until it found the lowest-priced offeror with a technically acceptable proposal.  Id. Of relevance here, section L.4.2 of the RFP instructed offerors to submit “data other than certified cost or pricing data,” which the agency intended to use to evaluate the proposed prices for reasonableness, and section L.4.3 required offerors to provide certain information “used in the calculation of the out-year prices.”  RFP at 54.  While section M.2.1 warned that offerors “must carefully read, and provide all the information requested,” it advised that the agency “may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the [agency’s] best interest.”  Id. at 55. On or before December 1, 2017,[1] the agency received five proposals.  AR at 2.  The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) first reviewed the lowest-priced proposal, which was from Offeror A, rejected it for not including the information required by sections L.4.2 and L.4.3, and did not evaluate its price for reasonableness or its technical proposal for acceptability.  AR at 2; see RFP at 54.  The SSEB moved on to the next lowest-priced proposal that could be evaluated for price reasonableness and technical acceptability; upon completion, the SSEB presented its evaluation results, including the results of the compliance review, to the source selection authority.  AR at 3.  On February 8, 2018, the agency selected IDEAL for award and issued an IDIQ contract with an estimated value of $49,525,324 and a first delivery order of $1,769,728.  Id.; see also AR, Tab 6‑3, Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) Public Award Notice, Feb.