Xerox Corporation (SP7000-19-R-1001 )

B-417498.2,B-417498.3 Aug 16, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Xerox Corporation, of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Trident Engineering and Procurement, Inc., of Pottsville, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP7000-19-R-1001, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for an array of shipboard multipurpose devices, along with supplies and support services. Xerox argues that the agency conducted an improperly administered reverse auction and also misevaluated the awardee's proposal. 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:  Xerox Corporation File:  B-417498.2; B-417498.3 Date:  August 16, 2021 Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Ryan E. Roberts, Esq., and Daniel J. Alvarado, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester. Michael E. Barnicle, Esq., Keith J. Feigenbaum, Esq., and Patrick J. Gavin, Esq., Duane Morris LLP, for Trident Engineering and Procurement, Inc., an intervenor. Bruce T. McCarty, Esq., and Kevin F. Phillips, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s conduct of a reverse auction is denied where the record shows that the agency conducted it in accordance with the rules established for the reverse auction. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied where the record shows the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION Xerox Corporation, of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Trident Engineering and Procurement, Inc., of Pottsville, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP7000-19-R-1001, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for an array of shipboard multipurpose devices, along with supplies and support services.  Xerox argues that the agency conducted an improperly administered reverse auction and also misevaluated the awardee’s proposal.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contact, on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, to provide an array of single function, multi-function and specialty devices[1] (along with supplies and support services) to be installed aboard ships operated worldwide by the Navy, the Marines, the Coast Guard and other authorized mobile federal government entities for a 7-year period of performance.[2]  The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated considering price, technical, and past performance factors, with the technical and past performance factors to be evaluated on a pass/fail (acceptable or unacceptable) basis.  RFP at 4-5.  The RFP also advised that the agency intended to use a commercial provider’s reverse auction procedures to conduct price discussions.  RFP at 5.  We discuss the reverse auction procedures used here in detail below. In response to the RFP, the agency received proposals and, after discussions, determined that the proposals of Xerox and Trident were technically acceptable.  Both firms were invited to participate in the agency’s reverse auction.  At the conclusion of the reverse auction, Trident was determined to be the LPTA offeror, having submitted a final total price of $131,530,317.  Based on these results, the agency made award to Trident and Xerox’s protest followed.  DISCUSSION Xerox argues that the agency conducted an improperly administered reverse auction and maintains that the agency should reopen the auction in order to permit it to adequately compete.  Xerox also argues that the proposal submitted by Trident was technically unacceptable for several reasons that Xerox maintains should have resulted in the elimination of Trident’s proposal from consideration.  Finally, Xerox argues that the agency unreasonably failed to adequately evaluate Trident’s past performance, and maintains that Trident should have received a rating of unacceptable for its past performance.  We discuss Xerox’s contentions below after first providing additional background about the reverse auction. Additional Information about the Reverse Auction As noted, the RFP contemplated that the agency could use a reverse auction procedure in connection with conducting price discussions.  RFP at 6.  The RFP provided the following additional information about the reverse auction: During each round of reverse auction, the system displays the lowest offer price(s) unless the auction instructions are different.  All offerors and authorized auction users see the displayed lowest price(s).