Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc. (N0018919R3037)

B-418172.2 Jan 26, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the exclusion of its quotation from competition for request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00189-19-R-3037, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, to obtain training, education, engineering, technical and management support services for the Royal Saudi Naval Forces. The protester argues that even though its proposal did not contain certain subcontractor pricing information, the agency unreasonably failed to review Kratos's quotation in full to assess if it nevertheless contained all necessary cost/price elements. The protester argues in the alternative that the agency should have either waived the requirement for this information or requested it from Kratos. 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:  Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc. File:  B-418172.2 Date:  January 26, 2021 John R. Prairie, Esq., and Cara L. Lasley, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Theresa S. Keenan, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision not to consider the vendor’s quotation is denied, where the protester’s cost quotation was incomplete and the solicitation did not permit the agency to consider an incomplete quotation. DECISION   Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the exclusion of its quotation from competition for request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00189-19-R-3037, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, to obtain training, education, engineering, technical and management support services for the Royal Saudi Naval Forces.  The protester argues that even though its proposal did not contain certain subcontractor pricing information, the agency unreasonably failed to review Kratos’s quotation in full to assess if it nevertheless contained all necessary cost/price elements.  The protester argues in the alternative that the agency should have either waived the requirement for this information or requested it from Kratos. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 9, 2019, the Navy issued the RFQ, using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 procedures, under the indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) Seaport-e contract to provide training, education, engineering, technical, and management support services for the Royal Saudi Naval Forces.[1]  On September 30, the agency made award to Salient Federal-SGIS, Inc.  On October 15, Kratos filed a protest with our Office.  In response, the agency advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action by reevaluating quotations and, potentially, revising the solicitation.  Notice of Corrective Action & Req. for Dismissal, B‑418172, Oct. 30, 2019.  On the basis of this proposed corrective action, our Office dismissed the protest as academic.  Kratos Def. & Rocket Support Servs., Inc., B‑418172, Nov. 6, 2019 (unpublished decision).  The revised solicitation contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order to the vendor whose quotation represented the best value to the agency, considering the factors of performance approach, management approach, corporate experience, past performance, socio-economic plan, and cost/price.  RFQ at 53.  The performance approach and management approach factors were of equal importance and were more important than both the corporate experience and past performance factors.  Id.  The corporate experience and past performance factors were of equal importance and were significantly more important than the socio-economic plan factor.  Id. at 53-54.  The technical factors were more important than cost/price.  Id. at 54. As relevant to this protest, with regard to cost/price, vendors were instructed to include the same information for their subcontractors as for themselves.  Id. at 47 (“Quoters shall address Subcontracted Costs.  Each subcontractor estimate shall be addressed separately, and detailed cost information shall be provided in the same format (including payroll screen shots) as required for the prime contractor.”).  Those subcontractors were permitted to provide this information directly to the agency.  Id.