Pitney Bowes, Inc. (W9124J-24-Q-POST)

B-422528 May 23, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pitney Bowes, Inc., of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a task order to Quadient, Inc., of Milford, Connecticut, under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W9124J-24-Q-POST, issued by the Department of the Army for the lease and maintenance of mail metering machines. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal was unreasonable. We dismiss 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: Pitney Bowes, Inc. File: B-422528 Date: May 23, 2024 William A. Shook, Esq., The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, for the protester. Catherine K. Kroll, Esq., and Kelly A. Carlson, Esq., Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, for Quadient, Inc., the intervenor. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Nolan T. Koon, Esq., Dmitrius R. McGruder, Esq., and Bruce A. Nessler, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging evaluation of awardee’s proposal is dismissed as a matter of contract administration where protester alleges awardee failed to comply with contract clause. 2. Protest challenging evaluation of awardee’s proposal is dismissed where protester’s contention that awardee failed to comply with technical requirement lacks a valid basis of protest. DECISION Pitney Bowes, Inc., of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a task order to Quadient, Inc., of Milford, Connecticut, under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W9124J-24-Q-POST, issued by the Department of the Army for the lease and maintenance of mail metering machines. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal was unreasonable. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on March 20, 2024, anticipated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for the lease and maintenance of multiple commercial-off-the-shelf mail metering machines from the General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule under the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Req. for Dismissal at 2; Protest, attach. 1, RTOP at 1,3; Protest, attach. 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2. The solicitation sought the lease and maintenance of the equipment for a base year and four 1-year options. Protest, attach. 2, PWS at 1. Award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. The agency would consider the following factors in evaluating proposals: technical, past performance, and price. RTOP at 2. The Army received proposals from Pitney Bowes and Quadient in response to the solicitation. Protest, attach. 3, Notice of Award at 1. The agency found both proposals to be acceptable under the technical and past performance factors and that Quadient’s offered price of $554,634.60 was the lowest. Id. at 2. Based on its LPTA offer, the Army issued the task order to Quadient. Id. at 1. Pitney Bowes was notified of the award decision on April 12, 2024. Id. This protest followed on April 16. DISCUSSION The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s proposal. Specifically, the protester contends that Quadient could not comply with a contract clause and that Quadient did not propose all necessary equipment required by the solicitation. Protest at 8-9. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the protest. Contract Administration Pitney Bowes argues that Quadient could not comply with clause 252.204-7012 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), which was incorporated into the solicitation by reference. Protest at 8. Prior to the agency report due date, the Army requested dismissal of the protest, arguing among other things, that compliance with the DFARS clause is a matter of contract administration, not reviewed by our Office. Req. for Dismissal at 8. Our Office considers bid protest challenges to the award or proposed award of contracts. 31 U.S.C. § 3552. Therefore, we generally do not review matters of contract administration, which are within the discretion of the contracting agency and for review by a cognizant board of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(a).[1] Clause 252.204-7012 of the DFARS, titled “Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting,” requires contractors to abide by certain security requirements to protect covered contractor information systems. See DFARS clause 252.204-7012(b). The only reference in the solicitation to this DFARS clause is in the section titled “Clauses Incorporated by Reference.” RTOP at 3.