File Not Found

B-424390 Jul 07, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The NORDAM Group, LLC (NORDAM), of Tulsa, Oklahoma, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-delivery (IDIQ) contract to Vertex Modernization and Sustainment LLC (Vertex), of Indianapolis, Indiana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00383-25-R-001D, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command for repair and modification of SUU-79 pylons used on various naval aircraft. The protester challenges the agency's: (1) decision to award a single IDIQ contract rather than make multiple awards; (2) conduct of discussions; and (3) evaluation of proposals under the RFP's small business participation factor. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: The NORDAM Group, LLC File: B-424390 Date: July 7, 2026 Doug Brown, for the protester. Kayleigh M. Scalzo, Esq., Jason A. Carey, Esq., and J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, for Vertex Modernization and Sustainment LLC, the intervenor. Sherine N. Bediako, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's decision to award a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract, rather than make multiple awards, is dismissed as an untimely challenge to the solicitation's terms, which stated the agency intended to make multiple awards but also expressly reserved the right to make a single award. 2. Protest contention that discussions were not meaningful is denied where record reflects the agency informed the protester of the specific issue identified as a deficiency in its proposal, and the protester's failure to correct the issue was due to no fault of the agency; agency also reasonably refused to consider protester's attempt to correct the deficiency with a late proposal revision. 3. Protest taking issue with agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal under solicitation's small business participation factor is denied where the record reflects the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION The NORDAM Group, LLC (NORDAM), of Tulsa, Oklahoma, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-delivery (IDIQ) contract to Vertex Modernization and Sustainment LLC (Vertex), of Indianapolis, Indiana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00383-25-R-001D, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command for repair and modification of SUU-79 pylons used on various naval aircraft. The protester challenges the agency's: (1) decision to award a single IDIQ contract rather than make multiple awards; (2) conduct of discussions; and (3) evaluation of proposals under the RFP's small business participation factor. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on February 24, 2025, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 2.[1] The solicitation contemplated issuance of one or more 3-year IDIQ contracts for repair and modification of SUU-79 pylons used on the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircrafts. Id. at 5-6, 11, 14. With respect to the number of awards to be made, the solicitation stated variously that: “The Government may elect to award a single delivery order contract or to award multiple delivery order contracts”; “This RFP is for the issuance of a three (3) year IDIQ. Multiple IDIQs may be issued as a result of this solicitation”; and “The Government intends to issue multiple IDIQ awards as [a] result of this solicitation, however, the Government reserves the right to make a single IDIQ award.” Id. at 5, 11, 68. The solicitation established award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis using a two-step evaluation process. RFP at 68. For step one, the agency would determine “whether the offeror is an approved source of repair” for SUU-79 pylons, and any offeror that was not an approve source of repairs would “be rated unacceptable” and eliminated from the competition. Id. For step two, the agency would assess proposals under five evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) repair turnaround time; (2) capacity; (3) price; (4) past performance; and (5) small business participation. Id. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. If a proposal received “[a] rating less than ‘Acceptable' in any non-price evaluation factor and/or less than a ‘Satisfactory Confidence' rating in the Past Performance evaluation factor,” the proposal would be ineligible for award.[2] Id. The agency received three proposals from “approved sources of repair,” including those submitted by the protester and awardee. AR, Tab 5, SSEB Report at 112. Following evaluation of initial proposals, the Navy conducted two rounds of discussions with all three offerors. Id. at 113.