World Wide Technology, Inc. (HC1084-18-r-0001)

B-417909.2,B-417909.3 Dec 14, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights World Wide Technology, LLC (WWT), of St. Louis, Missouri, protests the award of a contract to Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE), of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HC1084-18-R-0001, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), for enterprise storage solution services. The protester contends that the agency's discussions were misleading and not meaningful. The protester further contends that the solicitation failed to provide a common basis for competition, and the source selection decision is 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:  World Wide Technology, Inc. File:  B-417909.2; B-417909.3 Date:  December 14, 2020 James Y. Boland, Esq., Dismas N. Locaria, Esq., Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., and Michael T. Francel, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Jason A. Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Andrew Guy, Esq., and Michael Pierce, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, the intervenor. Daniel C. McIntosh, Esq., and Michelle Sabin, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency’s discussions were not meaningful because the agency did not inform the protester that its price was unreasonably high is denied where the record shows that the agency concluded the protester’s price was reasonable. 2.  Protest that agency’s discussions misled the protester to change its technical solution in a manner that needlessly increased its price is denied where the record shows that the agency repeatedly raised its legitimate concerns regarding an aspect of the protester’s proposed technical solution. 3.  Protest alleging that the disparities between the offerors’ proposed prices and the government’s estimate show that the offerors were not competing on a common basis is denied where the protester does not identify any solicitation provisions which are vague or misleading. DECISION   World Wide Technology, LLC (WWT), of St. Louis, Missouri, protests the award of a contract to Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE), of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HC1084-18-R-0001, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), for enterprise storage solution services.  The protester contends that the agency’s discussions were misleading and not meaningful.  The protester further contends that the solicitation failed to provide a common basis for competition, and the source selection decision is flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 18, 2018, the agency issued the RFP using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 procedures for award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2AH, RFP at 1, 33.[1]  The RFP contemplated a period of performance consisting of a 5-year base period and five 1-year option periods, with a total maximum contract value of $639,602,000.  Id. at 3-8.  The performance work statement (PWS) states:  “The objective of this contract is to obtain reliable, responsive, cost-effective managed services and on-demand storage capabilities for Government-approved locations [] in the continental United States (CONUS) and outside of the continental United States (OCONUS).”  RFP attach. C-1, PWS at 1. The RFP advised that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following factors:  (1) technical/management, (2) past performance, (3) cost/price, (4) supply chain risk management plan, and (5) small business management.  RFP attach. M-1, Evaluation Factors for Award at § M.2.0.  The technical/management factor included two evaluation phases, and only proposals that received an acceptable rating for phase one would be further evaluated for award.  Id.  Phase two of the technical/management factor included the following subfactors:  (1) unclassified CONUS Datacenter A operational storage environment task order; (2) unclassified CONUS Datacenter A backup storage environment task order; (3) unclassified CONUS Datacenter A growth task order; (4) analytics; and (5) unclassified CONUS Datacenter A network attached storage (NAS)/object storage task order.  Id.  This fifth subfactor and all other non-cost/price factors were to be rated as acceptable or unacceptable.  Id.  The other four technical/management subfactors would be assigned ratings, based on an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses identified in proposals, as follows:  outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable.  Id.