IBM Corporation

B-417664 Sep 18, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IBM Corporation, of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, of Herndon, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 8010 by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for information technology (IT) support services. IBM challenges the agency's cost realism evaluation of Northrop Grumman's quotation, and the evaluation of quotations under various non-cost/price factors. 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:  IBM Corporation File:  B-417664 Date:  September 18, 2019 David W. Burgett, Esq., Michael Vernick, Esq., and Adilene Rosales, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP, for the protester. Richard A. Sauber, Esq., Deneen J. Melander, Esq., and Megan D. Browder, Esq., Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, for Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, the intervenor. David K. Barnes, Esq., Gregory Matherne, Esq., and Holly H. Styles, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the adequacy of the agency’s cost realism evaluation is denied where the record shows that the agency’s analysis was reasonable and conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging the evaluation of quotations under various non-price/cost factors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and conducted in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. 3.  Protest that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency’s discussions with the protester led it into the areas of its quotation requiring amplification or revision, and the agency was not required to discuss certain adverse past performance information with the protester. DECISION IBM Corporation, of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, of Herndon, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 8010 by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for information technology (IT) support services.  IBM challenges the agency’s cost realism evaluation of Northrop Grumman’s quotation, and the evaluation of quotations under various non-cost/price factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Infrastructure Shared Services (ISS) RFQ, issued on October 22, 2018, sought quotations from holders of the General Services Administration’s Alliant 2 government-wide acquisition contract to acquire contractor support for all IRS projects integrating onto the IRS IT infrastructure. Agency Report (AR), Tab D.2.1, RFQ, amend. 1, at 1.[1]  The RFQ contemplated issuance of a hybrid labor-hour, fixed-price, and cost-plus-fixed-fee task order to provide the required IT support services.  Id.  Of the six contract line item numbers (CLIN) contemplated under the task order, CLINs 3 and 4 (ISS Core Support)--which represented the vast majority of the work performed--were to be cost-type CLINs.[2]  Id. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering cost/price (hereinafter, price) and the following factors listed in descending order of importance:  technical solution, small business participation plan, corporate experience, and past performance.[3]  Id. at 3-4,11.  The non-price factors, when combined, were to be more important than price.  Id.  Under the stated evaluation scheme, vendors were notified that the government “is more concerned with obtaining superior technical capability than making an award at the lowest priced offer.  The importance of price may increase as the difference in technical quotes decreases.”  Id. at 11. Quotations were to be evaluated based on total evaluated price, which was to include the base period, all option quantities, option periods, travel, and all other costs or prices, as applicable.  Id. at 9.  Price was not to be assigned an adjectival rating or score.  Id.