Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc. (FA4613-19-R-A005;FA4417-19-R-A003)

B-417472.2,B-417494.2,B-417527.2,B-417562.2 Feb 25, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., a small business of Rockland, Massachusetts, requests that our Office recommend that the Department of the Air Force reimburse the firm for the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing four separate protests. Each protest challenged a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Air Force for the management of a contractor-operated civil engineer supply store (COCESS) at one of four locations: F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB), Wyoming; Altus AFB, Oklahoma; Hurlburt Field, Florida; and Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. Specifically, the protester seeks a recommendation for reimbursement of costs related to its challenges regarding unfair competitive advantage; improper use of brand names without justification; and errors in the pricing spreadsheet. Combined Reply to Opp'n to Requests for Partial Reimbursement of Costs at 1 n.1.1 Because of the similarities in the solicitation structures and legal issues, we consider the requests together. We deny the requests. 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.--Costs File:  B-417472.2; B-417494.2; B-417527.2; B-417562.2 Date:  February 25, 2020 Gary J. Campbell, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., and Matt Koehl, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Lawrence Anderson, Esq., Isabelle Cutting, Esq., and Erica Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation of reimbursement of protest costs is denied where the protest grounds were not clearly meritorious. DECISION   Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., a small business of Rockland, Massachusetts, requests that our Office recommend that the Department of the Air Force reimburse the firm for the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing four separate protests.  Each protest challenged a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Air Force for the management of a contractor-operated civil engineer supply store (COCESS) at one of four locations: F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB), Wyoming; Altus AFB, Oklahoma; Hurlburt Field, Florida; and Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.  Specifically, the protester seeks a recommendation for reimbursement of costs related to its challenges regarding unfair competitive advantage; improper use of brand names without justification; and errors in the pricing spreadsheet.  Combined Reply to Opp’n to Requests for Partial Reimbursement of Costs at 1 n.1.[1]  Because of the similarities in the solicitation structures and legal issues, we consider the requests together. We deny the requests. BACKGROUND The four RFQs, issued under the commercial items acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13, each provided for the issuance of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for the operation of COCESS facilities to the responsible firm whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering the factors of technical, past performance, and price.  The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  The period of performance consisted of one 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  B‑417472, Conformed RFQ at 3-5, 49-55; B-417494, Conformed RFQ at 3-5; B-417494, Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, at 1-2; B‑417527, Conformed RFQ at 3-6, 56-58; B‑417562, Conformed RFQ at 3-5, 54.[2]  The RFQs contained a single contract line item number (CLIN), CLIN 0001, for all potential COCESS items.[3]  B-417472, Conformed RFQ at 3; B‑417494, Conformed RFQ at 3; B‑417562, Conformed RFQ at 3; B-417527, Conformed RFQ at 3.  Although the RFQs were characterized as fixed-price contracts, the prices of individual COCESS items were not fixed, but were instead calculated by multiplying two components:  the item price published by a specific retailer on its retail website,[4] and a fixed percentage premium (or discount) chosen by the vendor and applied to the reference retailer’s online price.  B-417472, RFQ amend. 0006 at Statement of Work (SOW) at 5‑6; B‑417494, RFQ, attach. 1, SOW at 6; B-417527, RFQ, attach. A, SOW at 5-6; B‑417562, Conformed RFQ at 48.  Thus, while the reference retailer and the vendor’s premium or discount were fixed, the final COCESS item price floated in step with the reference retailer’s online price, which was presumed to incorporate market fluctuations.[5]  See, e.g., B-417472, RFQ amend.