LightBox Parent, L.P. (273FCC21R0005)

B-420032.2,B-420032.3,B-420032.4,B-420032.5 Feb 24, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LightBox Parent, L.P., of Irvine, California, protests the award of a contract to CostQuest Associates, Inc., of Cincinnati, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 273FCC21R0005, issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the creation and delivery of a broadband internet availability dataset. The protester alleges the agency erred in its evaluation in several respects, that CostQuest's proposal contained material misrepresentations, and that CostQuest will not be able to meet material solicitation requirements due to the terms of various data licensing agreements. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. 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:  LightBox Parent, LP File:  B-420032.2; B-420032.3; B-420032.4; B-420032.5 Date:  February 24, 2022 Edward Arnold, Esq., and Bret Marfut, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for the protester. William O’Reilly, Esq., and Anuj Vohra, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for CostQuest Associates, Inc., the intervenor. Derek A. Yeo, Esq., Jessica A. Easton, Esq., and Chin Yoo, Esq., Federal Communications Commission, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that agency failed to consider that data rights offered by the awardee were inconsistent with data rights information contained in the protester’s proposal, as well as other information in the awardee’s proposal, is denied because the record did not reflect any inconsistencies.  2.  Protest alleging that awardee cannot license certain data to the agency because the data is licensed from a third party, and the third party does not itself have the necessary rights to allow the awardee to license the data to the agency is dismissed.  These arguments pertain to a dispute between private parties in which the government is not involved.  In addition, the ancillary question of whether, as a result of these agreements, the awardee will ultimately be able to furnish the agency with appropriate data rights is a question of contract administration not for our forum. 3.  Protest alleging that awardee materially misrepresented terms of license agreements it held with a third party is denied, in part, where the record does not establish that statements in the awardee’s proposal were false, and dismissed, in part, to the extent resolving the alleged misrepresentation would require our Office to resolve facially legitimate disputes about differing interpretations of agreements between private parties that our Office does not review. DECISION LightBox Parent, L.P., of Irvine, California, protests the award of a contract to CostQuest Associates, Inc., of Cincinnati, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 273FCC21R0005, issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the creation and delivery of a broadband internet availability dataset.  The protester alleges the agency erred in its evaluation in several respects, that CostQuest’s proposal contained material misrepresentations, and that CostQuest will not be able to meet material solicitation requirements due to the terms of various data licensing agreements. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On June 1, 2021, the FCC issued the RFP seeking the creation and delivery of a dataset concerning broadband internet availability, called the “Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric” (BSL Fabric).[1]  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 4.  The RFP contemplated a single award based on a best-value tradeoff between four evaluation factors:  (1) technical approach; (2) data usage rights; (3) past performance; and (4) price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6d, Instructions to Offerors at 1, 9-10.  The RFP also provided that non-price factors when combined were significantly more important than price.  Id.  Further, the RFP provided that offerors should include only one technical and past performance proposal volume, but that each offeror could propose up to three alternative data rights proposal volumes with accompanying alternative price volumes that would each be evaluated separately.  Id. at 10. Relevant to this protest, the agency identified three tiers of increasing data rights that offerors could propose.  See AR, Tab 5d, Statement of Objectives at 9-13.  Specifically, tier one rights reflected the minimum rights that offerors needed to provide to be technically acceptable, and included rights to prepare derivative works for certain identified uses, as well as the rights to publish specific portions of the data and derivative works created from the data.  Id.