Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Comptroller General of the United States
November 9, 2016
[EDITOR'S NOTE: PAGE NUMBERS APPEARING IN BOLD BRACKETS, [CPD 1], REFLECT THE OFFICIAL PAGINATION OF THE U.S. COMPTROLLER GENERAL PROCUREMENT DECISIONS.]
[CPD 1] DECISION
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of McLean, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Battelle Memorial Institute, of Columbus, Ohio, by the United States Special Operations Command under request for proposals (RFP) No. H92222-15-R-0037 for nonstandard commercial vehicles modified for special operations use. SAIC alleges that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and that its decision not to conduct discussions was improper.
We deny the protest.
[CPD 2] BACKGROUND
The solicitation, issued on December 1, 2015, contemplated [*2] the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price, cost, and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract line item numbers. RFP at 1-83, 166. The contract was to have a base ordering period of five years and a two-year option period. Id. at 2. The minimum and maximum ordering amounts under the contract were to be $ 2,500 and $ 170 million, respectively. Id.
The solicitation included a statement of work (SOW) and performance specification that established numerous requirements for the needed vehicles. Among other things, the SOW provided that the vehicles, as modified, were to "retain the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM) profile while supporting the integration of armor, heavy-duty suspension and brakes, run flat tires/wheels, and communication equipment." SOW at 2.
The solicitation provided that the award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis and explained the evaluation process as follows. Proposals would be evaluated against a number of "qualifying criteria" and rated either acceptable or unacceptable. 1 RFP at 181. Proposals also would be evaluated under the following three "areas": technical/management, past performance, and price. [*3] Id. In terms of weight, the technical/management area was said to be significantly more important than past performance, and the past performance area was said to be significantly more important than price. Id.
The technical/management area included two factors: vehicle configuration and management approach. RFP at 181. The vehicle configuration factor was said to be significantly more important than the management approach factor. Id. In addition, the management approach factor included the following three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: design and production process; quality assurance, process control, and logistics; and management plan. Id. The solicitation stated that under the technical/management [*4] area, proposals would be assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable, and that under the past performance area, proposals would be assigned adjectival ratings of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence (neutral). Id. at 185-88. The solicitation also stated that the assessment of a deficiency under any area, factor, [CPD 3] or subfactor "may cause the proposal to be excluded from consideration for award." RFP at 181.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2016 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 331 *; 2016 Comp. Gen. Proc. Dec. P328
Matter of: Science Applications International Corporation
solicitation, proposals, weaknesses, evaluated, Protest, rating, configuration, contracting, procurement, Comments, unacceptable, argues, confidence, Subfactor, agency's decision, past performance, Specification, Regulation, qualifying, Marginal, terms, recommendation, instructions, Acquisition, conducting, windshield, offeror's, assigned, weighted