SupplyCore, Inc. (SPE8E3-21-R-0001)

B-419971.3,B-419971.4,B-419971.5,B-419971.6 Jun 15, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SupplyCore, Inc., of Rockford, Illinois, and Noble Supply & Logistics, LLC, a small business of Boston, Massachusetts, protest the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE8E3-21-R-0001, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Troop Support, for prime vendor support to provide construction supplies, equipment, and incidental services for the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. The protesters contend that specific price terms are inconsistent with customary commercial practice and that the agency's waiver of customary commercial practice was unreasonable. We deny the protests. 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: SupplyCore, Inc.; Noble Supply & Logistics, LLC File: B-419971.3; B-419971.4; B-419971.5; B-419971.6 Date: June 15, 2023 William E. Hughes, Esq., and Leah C. Kaiser, Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for SupplyCore, Inc.; and Gary J. Campbell, Esq., Seth A. Locke, Esq., Miles A. McCann, Esq., and Jedidiah K.R. Blake, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for Noble Supply & Logistics, LLC, the protesters. Ashley L. Peskoe, Esq., and Andrew T. McGuire, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., Alexa Stechschulte, and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests that the terms of solicitation are inconsistent with customary commercial practice and are otherwise unreasonable are denied where the agency properly issued a waiver in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation section 12.302(c), and the record shows that the terms are reasonably justified. DECISION SupplyCore, Inc., of Rockford, Illinois, and Noble Supply & Logistics, LLC, a small business of Boston, Massachusetts, protest the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE8E3-21-R-0001, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Troop Support, for prime vendor support to provide construction supplies, equipment, and incidental services for the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. The protesters contend that specific price terms are inconsistent with customary commercial practice and that the agency’s waiver of customary commercial practice was unreasonable. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 26, 2021, contemplates award of 12 indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity, fixed-price contracts, with one award for each of two zones within each of the six geographic regions representing the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, attach. 1, RFP at 23, 99. The contracts would be awarded for a 2‑year base ordering period and up to four 2-year option periods. RFP at 9. Under DLA’s maintenance repair and operations (MRO) tailored logistics support (TLS) program, each awardee would be responsible for supplying a wide range of commercial maintenance, repair, and operation supplies and incidental services to authorized DLA customers throughout the contractor’s respective zone. COS/MOL at 2; RFP at 12, 19. The procurement is being conducted pursuant to the commercial item acquisition procedures of part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). For each zone and region, award is to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation is determined to be most advantageous to the government based on price and non‑price factors. The three non‑price factors, listed in order of importance, are: (1) technical merit; (2) past performance; and (3) storefront support technical merit. RFP at 91‑92. The RFP informed offerors that the non-price factors were significantly more important than price. Id. at 91. As relevant here, the RFP requires, for each respective zone, the selected offeror to take on the role of a “prime vendor” responsible for supplying all products listed in the solicitation’s price evaluation list, which “constitutes non-exhaustive, illustrative lists of the types of supplies that will potentially be ordered under the resultant contracts.” RFP at 20. The RFP notes that all items are commercial or modified commercial products as defined in FAR section 2.101. Id. For price evaluation, offerors were to provide a unit price, comprising the sum of the offeror’s acquisition price and the applicable distribution fee price, for each item on the price evaluation list. Id. The initial RFP defined “acquisition price” as follows: The acquisition price is defined as the actual invoice price of the product and/or incidental service to the contractor.