Red River Science & Technology, LLC (W519TC23R0022)

B-422253.3,B-422253.4,B-422253.5,B-422253.6 Nov 26, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Red River Science & Technology, LLC, of Lawton, Oklahoma, protests the agency's alleged actions regarding a task order contemplated under request for quotations (RFP) No. W519TC23R0022, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for logistics support services at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, as part of the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) program. The protester asserts that the agency improperly amended the solicitation, reopened discussions, and conducted unequal discussions. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. View Decision Decision Matter of: Red River Science & Technology, LLC File: B-422253.3; B-422253.4; B-422253.5; B-422253.6 Date: November 26, 2024 Jackson W. Moore Jr., Esq., and Amelia L. Serrat, Esq., Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, for the protester. Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency improperly amended the solicitation is denied where the record shows that the agency had a reasonable basis to amend the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency improperly reopened discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency had a reasonable basis to reopen discussions. 3. Protest that the agency is conducting unequal discussions is dismissed as premature. DECISION Red River Science & Technology, LLC, of Lawton, Oklahoma, protests the agency’s alleged actions regarding a task order contemplated under request for quotations (RFP) No. W519TC23R0022, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for logistics support services at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, as part of the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) program. The protester asserts that the agency improperly amended the solicitation, reopened discussions, and conducted unequal discussions. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 21, 2023, as a small business set-aside and pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13, sought logistics support services to include maintenance, supply, and transportation services to be provided at Fort Campbell. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Conformed RFP at 3, 31.[1] The RFP was issued to holders of the EAGLE basic ordering agreement. Id. at 31. The EAGLE program is utilized to execute logistics services requirements at logistics readiness centers and other Army installations around the world. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1. The RFP was issued as a cost-plus-fixed-fee/fixed-price task order to be performed over a 1-year base period (including a 60-day transition-in period), four 1-year option periods, and one 6-month option period. Conformed RFP at 37. Award would be made to the offeror with the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal considering cost/price and two non-price factors: technical and past performance. Id. at 55. Under the technical factor proposals were to be assigned ratings of acceptable or unacceptable, and under the past performance factor proposals were to be assigned ratings of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown (neutral) confidence. Id. at 58-59. To be eligible for award, a proposal had to receive a rating of substantial confidence. Id. at 55. Price was to be evaluated as fair and reasonable. Id. As relevant here, the RFP stated that if an offeror’s or subcontractor’s proposal included “indirect expense rates not fully supported (IAW) [in accordance with] L.5.4.2.13, those rates will be capped at the proposed rates for evaluation purposes and for the life of the requirements task order (52.216-21).” Id. at 59. The agency received 12 proposals. COS/MOL at 3. The agency ranked all proposals by price and determined that there were five technically acceptable proposals. Id. The agency finalized the competitive range on February 26, 2024, which consisted of four offerors, including Red River. Id. at 4. The agency provided these offerors the opportunity to submit revised proposals and all offerors except Red River did so. Id. The agency reevaluated proposals and three were found technically acceptable, including Red River’s. Id. at 5. The agency then evaluated past performance and cost/price and allowed offerors to submit revised cost/price proposals. Id. at 5-6. Several proposals, [DELETED], included capped rates.[2] COS/MOL at 6, 15-16; Supp. MOL at 4. After completing evaluations, the agency determined that another offeror had the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal with a rating of substantial confidence. COS/MOL at 6.