MANCON, LLC (N00189-18-R-0007)

B-417571.5,B-417571.6 May 12, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mancon, LLC, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Noble Supply and Logistics, Inc. (Noble) of Rockland, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00189-18-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Navy for materials and logistical services in support of the Naval Facilities Mid-Atlantic Public Works Department in Crane, Indiana. Mancon challenges the agency's reevaluation of technical proposals, conducted after the Navy's corrective action following Noble's earlier protest. Mancon also asserts that the agency's evaluation of Noble's price proposal was flawed. 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:  Mancon, LLC File:  B-417571.5; B-417571.6 Date:  May 12, 2020 Michael L. Sterling, Esq., Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq., and Daniel Salmon, Esq., Vandeventer Black LLP, for the protester. G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., and Gary J. Campbell, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US), LLP, for Noble Supply and Logistics, Inc., the intervenor. Andrew Christopher, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging an agency’s reevaluation of the protester’s and the awardee’s technical proposals as part of corrective action in response to an earlier protest is denied where the record shows that the reevaluation was reasonable, and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging the awardee’s price proposal as noncompliant with the solicitation’s instructions is denied where the record shows that the awardee complied with the instructions and its proposal provided no reason for the agency to conclude otherwise. 3.  Protest alleging that awardee’s pricing is unrealistically low is dismissed where the protester fails to demonstrate that the solicitation provided for a price realism evaluation. 4.  Protest alleging that awardee’s pricing is unbalanced is dismissed where the protester fails to make the threshold showing that one or more of the awardee’s prices was overstated, and, where the agency evaluated the risk of unbalanced pricing and reasonably determined that the risk of unbalanced pricing was low. DECISION   Mancon, LLC, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Noble Supply and Logistics, Inc. (Noble) of Rockland, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00189-18-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Navy for materials and logistical services in support of the Naval Facilities Mid-Atlantic Public Works Department in Crane, Indiana.  Mancon challenges the agency’s reevaluation of technical proposals, conducted after the Navy’s corrective action following Noble’s earlier protest.  Mancon also asserts that the agency’s evaluation of Noble’s price proposal was flawed.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on February 8, 2018, contemplated award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity fixed-price contract, with economic price adjustment provisions, on a best-value tradeoff basis.  RFP at 67, 113.[1]  The solicitation sought proposals for services and supplies necessary to maintain an adequate stock of all parts, materials, and equipment at the Naval support facility in Crane, Indiana, at two contractor-operated parts stores.  RFP at 14. Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated under four factors:  technical; past performance; small business participation plan; and price.  Id. at 113-118.  The technical factor was comprised of three subfactors:  the performance approach, the management approach, and the transition/phase-in plan; among those three, the performance approach subfactor was significantly more important than the management approach and transition/phase-in plan subfactors, which were of equal importance.  Id. at 113-14.  Further, the technical factor was significantly more important than past performance, and past performance was more important than the small business participation plan.  Id. at 113.  The non-price factors were significantly more important than price.  Id. Of relevance here, the total evaluated price was to be calculated by adding the offeror’s proposed prices for:  services for each year of performance; test market basket,[2] comprising items commonly sold at the Navy stores in Crane; and the total material[3] price, reflecting discounted commodity groups.  Id.