LexisNexis-Division of RELX Inc. (2032H8-19-R-00003)

B-418885,B-418885.2 Oct 08, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LexisNexis, a division of RELX, Inc. (Lexis), of Washington, D.C., protests the award of contracts to Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA), of Boston, Massachusetts, and to West Publishing Corporation, doing business as West, a Thomson Reuters Business (Thomson), of Eagan, Minnesota, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2032H8-19-R-00003, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for commercial online research services in the form of a specialized tax research service and a more general comprehensive research service, respectively. Lexis argues that Treasury misevaluated the proposals, held defective discussions, and made unreasonable source selection decisions. 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:  LexisNexis, a Division of RELX Inc. File:  B-418885; B-418885.2 Date:  October 8, 2020 Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Scott F. Lane, Esq., and Jayna Marie Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., and Christopher Bell, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.; Jason A. Carey, Esq., Kayleigh M. Scalzo, Esq., and Andrew R. Guy, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for West Publishing Corporation, d/b/a West, a Thomson Reuters Business, the intervenors. Justin Wakefield, Esq., Holly H. Styles, Esq., Richard L. Hatfield, Esq., and Jonathan D. Tepper, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal and engaged in unequal evaluation treatment is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and that differences in the evaluation were based on differences in offerors’ proposals.  2.  Protest that agency conducted misleading discussions is denied where the agency identified inaccurate results in testing the protester’s product and, although the protester asserted in its final proposal revision that it had identified and corrected the problem, the agency’s subsequent testing justified similar concerns with inaccurate results.  3.  Protest that agency erroneously assessed both a significant strength and a strength for the same attribute to the awardee’s proposal, and made other errors, is denied where the protester was not competitively prejudiced by the errors.  DECISION div=""> LexisNexis, a division of RELX, Inc. (Lexis), of Washington, D.C., protests the award of contracts to Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA), of Boston, Massachusetts, and to West Publishing Corporation, doing business as West, a Thomson Reuters Business (Thomson), of Eagan, Minnesota, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2032H8‑19-R-00003, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for commercial online research services in the form of a specialized tax research service and a more general comprehensive research service, respectively.  Lexis argues that Treasury misevaluated the proposals, held defective discussions, and made unreasonable source selection decisions.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued August 9, 2019, sought proposals to provide electronic research services for IRS staff under two indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts. The agency would make a separate award decision for the tax research service contract (referred to as award group 1) and the comprehensive research service (award group 2).  Offerors were allowed to submit a proposal for either or both.  Lexis is the incumbent contractor for the tax research service, and Thomson is the incumbent contractor for the comprehensive research service. The procurement was conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.1, which the contracting officer explains applied policies unique to the acquisition of commercial items in conjunction with the policies and procedures prescribed in FAR part 15.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5.  The contract for each award group would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value based on an evaluation under five factors, in descending order of importance:  technical approach, management approach, small business participation, past performance, and price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab G.4.1, RFP amend. 3 at 105.[1]  The RFP provided instructions on the organization and submission of proposals, and noted that each offeror might be required to provide temporary accounts to the government so that it could subjectively evaluate the ease of use for online features.  Id. at 99.