Professional Analysis, Inc. (N3220523R4140)

B-422226.4,B-422226.5 Nov 04, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Professional Analysis, Inc. (PAI), a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N3220523R4140, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC), for worldwide logistics services. The protester contends that the agency should have found the awardee's proposal to be technically unacceptable because it failed to revise its technical proposal although it drastically reduced its price in its final proposal revision, that the agency failed to perform a price realism evaluation, and that the awardee failed to certify that its "price was without reservation, assumption, or qualification" as required by the solicitation. We dismiss in part and deny in part 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: Professional Analysis, Inc. File: B-422226.4; B-422226.5 Date: November 4, 2024 Thomas K. David, Esq., Katherine A. David, Esq., and Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., Reston Law Group, LLP, for the protester. Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Hillary J. Freund, Esq., Kelsey M. Hayes, Esq., and Richard J. Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for CACI, Inc.-Federal, the intervenor. John E. Toner, Esq., Johanna E. Crawford, Esq., and T. Alexander Cloud, Jr., Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest allegations are dismissed where the protester withdrew and abandoned its initial arguments and instead raised new untimely arguments. 2. Protest that the awardee’s proposal improperly took exception to the solicitation requirements is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee’s assumptions were not exceptions, and where proposal language in question reflects the reservation of a right to request, rather than receive, a price adjustment. DECISION Professional Analysis, Inc. (PAI), a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N3220523R4140, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC), for worldwide logistics services. The protester contends that the agency should have found the awardee’s proposal to be technically unacceptable because it failed to revise its technical proposal although it drastically reduced its price in its final proposal revision, that the agency failed to perform a price realism evaluation, and that the awardee failed to certify that its “price was without reservation, assumption, or qualification” as required by the solicitation. We dismiss in part and deny in part the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on May 26, 2023, using the combined procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 73, RFP at 01919, 01921.[1] The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a period of performance consisting of a 2-month phase-in period, a 10-month base period, and four 12-month option periods. Id. at 01943, 01945. The RFP requires that the contractor provide qualified personnel, training, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, and other items as necessary to provide the worldwide logistics services as defined in the performance work statement (PWS). Id. at 01940. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated under the following four factors: technical approach; past performance; price; and small business participation commitment document. Id. at 02016. The technical approach factor included the following three subfactors: organizational experience; understanding to sample problems 1, 2, 3, and 5; and management approach and personnel experience. Id. The RFP further stated that all factors and subfactors would be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, and award would be made using a lowest-price technically acceptable source selection methodology. Specifically, the RFP stated: “Best value will result from the selection of the technically acceptable proposal with acceptable past performance and an acceptable small business participation commitment document and the lowest evaluated price.” Id. at 02015. The agency received timely proposals from two offerors, CACI and PAI. COS/MOL at 1. On November 3, the agency awarded the contract to PAI. Id. at 2. CACI filed a protest with our Office challenging the agency’s evaluation and selection decision; our Office dismissed the protest as academic after the agency advised that it would take corrective action.