RELX Inc. (RFQ-1609916)

B-421597.2,B-421597.3 Nov 17, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights RELX, Inc., d/b/a LexisNexis, of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a task order to West Publishing Company, of St. Paul, Minnesota, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1609916, issued by the Department of the Air Force for an electronic search and data tool license. RELX argues that the quotation submitted by West does not meet the requirements of the RFQ and should have been rejected. 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: RELX Inc. File: B-421597.2; B-421597.3 Date: November 17, 2023 Scott F. Lane, Esq., Jayna Marie Rust, Esq., and Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Colonial Frank Yoon, and Major Asilla J. Schrider, Department of the Air Force, 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 Protest challenging the issuance of a task order under a brand-name-or-equal procurement is sustained where record shows that agency improperly issued the task order based on a non-conforming quotation. DECISION RELX, Inc., d/b/a LexisNexis, of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a task order to West Publishing Company, of St. Paul, Minnesota, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1609916, issued by the Department of the Air Force for an electronic search and data tool license. RELX argues that the quotation submitted by West does not meet the requirements of the RFQ and should have been rejected. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ contemplates the issuance, on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, of a fixed-price task order under the successful vendor’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, for a software license for a base year and four 1-year options, to be used by the agency to enable its employees to perform access and search capabilities relating to law enforcement, and legal and legislative content. RFQ at 1.[1] Firms were advised that quotations would be listed from lowest to highest price, and that the agency would “serially” evaluate them for technical acceptability, starting with the lowest-priced quotation. RFQ at 3. Once the LPTA quotation was identified, the agency would conclude its evaluation and issue the task order to the firm submitting that quotation. Id The solicitation was issued on a “brand-name-or-equal” basis, and advised firms that they were required to provide either a brand-name LexisNexis software license, or equivalent. The RFQ included a list of salient characteristics that firms were required to meet. AR, Exh. 4, RFQ attach. 1, Salient Characteristics. The agency received two quotations, one from the protester and one from West, with West submitting the lowest price. The agency evaluated the West quotation; found it technically acceptable; initially issued the task order to West on March 28, 2023; and advised RELX of its selection decision. AR, Exh. 17, Unsuccessful Vendor Notice to RELX. RELX filed a protest with our Office, maintaining that the West quotation was technically unacceptable. In response to that protest, the agency elected to take corrective action. Based on that proposed corrective action, we dismissed RELX’s original protest. RELX, Inc., B-421597, May 1, 2023 (unpublished decision). The agency reevaluated the West quotation and again concluded that it was technically acceptable; again selected West for issuance of the task order on August 10; and advised RELX of its new selection decision. AR, Exh. 24, Second Unsuccessful Vendor Notice to RELX. After being advised of the agency’s selection decision, RELX filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION RELX argues that the West quotation is technically unacceptable because it does not meet several of the salient characteristics listed in the RFQ. RELX also argues that issuing the task order to West was legally impermissible because not all the required components of its proposed solution are included on its FSS contract, and the firm included “open market” elements in its response to the RFQ. We have considered all of RELX’s allegations. We conclude that the agency’s actions were improper because, in fact, there are elements of the West product that do not meet the salient characteristics of the solicitation, and also that West’s quotation included “open market” items not available under the firm’s FSS contract. We discuss our conclusions in detail below. Failure to Meet the Salient Characteristics RELX argues that the West quotation failed to meet several of the RFQ’s salient characteristics. We agree with RELX.