Science Applications International Corporation (SPE4A5-20-R-0150)

B-420005,B-420005.2,B-420005.3 Oct 27, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Fairfield, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract to Noble Sales Company d/b/a Noble Supply and Logistics, of Rockland, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE4A5-20-R-0150, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the acquisition of hardware and abrasives under federal stock group 53 (FSG 53). SAIC argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, failed to engage in meaningful discussions, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain 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:  Science Applications International Corporation File:  B-420005; B-420005.2; B-420005.3 Date:  October 27, 2021 James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Anayansi Rodriguez, Esq., and Christopher H. Bell, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Eric S. Crusius, Esq., Hillary J. Freund, Esq., and Amy Fuentes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Noble Sales Company d/b/a Noble Supply and Logistics, an intervenor. Elan D. Taylor, Esq., and Linwood I. Rogers, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging adequacy of discussions is sustained where the record shows that agency found protester’s prices unreasonably high but did not advise the protester of its findings during discussions. 2.  Protest that agency misevaluated proposals is sustained where the record shows that agency solicited--and then largely ignored--information from the offerors that would have enabled the agency to meaningfully evaluate whether the proposed prices were fair and reasonable. DECISION Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Fairfield, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract to Noble Sales Company d/b/a Noble Supply and Logistics, of Rockland, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE4A5-20-R-0150, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the acquisition of hardware and abrasives under federal stock group 53 (FSG 53).  SAIC argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, failed to engage in meaningful discussions, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a potential 10-year duration comprised of a 1-year transition period, a 3-year base period and two 3-year option periods.  The successful contractor will be required to meet the agency’s needs worldwide (including foreign military sales) for some 59,032 national stock number (NSN) items in the FSG 53 category of supplies which is comprised of items such as screws, nuts, bolts, washers and other fasteners and abrasives.  These items are broadly divided between two categories, a “core” basket of 8,375 high demand or repeat demand items, and an “alternative” basket of 50,657 low demand or non-stocked items. Firms were advised that proposals would be evaluated considering price and three non-price factors:  cyber security, technical and past performance.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 17, RFP Evaluation Factors, at 1.  The cyber security factor was to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and only those firms passing this evaluation would be eligible for consideration in the agency’s cost/technical tradeoff decision.  Id.  The remaining two non-price factors (technical and past performance) were to be comparatively evaluated and were deemed equally weighted; collectively, these two factors were deemed equal in weight to price in the agency’s tradeoff decision.  Id.  In addition, the technical factor included four equally weighted subfactors:  program management, program execution, quality system, and small business commitment plan.[1]  Id.  Finally, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate prices for reasonableness, balance and completeness.  Id.