Protest arguing that the agency failed to inform the protester that its price was unreasonably high is denied, where the protester’s proposal suffered multiple defects and omissions preventing a price reasonableness assessment prior to discussions, establishment of the competitive range, and acceptance of final proposal revisions.
General Dynamics Information Technology Inc. protested the award of a National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency contract for IT support services to Leidos Innovations Corporation. GDIT alleged that the agency failed to conduct a cost/price reasonableness assessment of its proposal and failed to alert GDIT of the problems in its cost/price proposal during discussions. GDIT also challenged numerous aspects of the agency’s technical evaluation of both GDIT’s and Leidos’ proposals, as well as the best-value evaluation.
GDIT first asserted that the agency should have conducted a cost/price reasonableness evaluation of its proposal even though the agency determined that it was precluded from doing so because GDIT’s cost/price proposal was incomplete. GDIT also argued that the agency was required to conduct a cost/price reasonableness evaluation of its proposal before establishing a competitive range. GDIT further argued that the agency should have reopened discussions when it belatedly determined, after the close of discussions, that GDIT’s cost/price proposal was unreasonably high.
The agency responded that it was unable to make a cost/price reasonableness assessment of GDIT’s proposal due to numerous defects and omissions. Further, the agency asserted that it provided GDIT with sufficient information in discussions for GDIT to identify the errors and omissions in its cost/price proposal. Finally, the agency argued that GDIT did not submit enough cost/pricing information to allow the agency to evaluate reasonableness until GDIT submitted its final proposal revision.
GAO rejected GDIT’s argument that the agency was required to make a cost/price reasonableness assessment of GDIT’s incomplete proposal. A proposal that fails to comply with the solicitation requirements cannot form the basis of a valid award, and the solicitation here warned offerors that proposals would be evaluated for completeness. GAO further determined that the agency reasonably directed GDIT to the errors in its cost/price proposal; if the agency had informed GDIT of some conclusion regarding its cost/price reasonableness, where no evaluation was possible, such discussions would have likely been misleading.
GAO also rejected GDIT’s argument that the agency was required to complete a cost/price reasonableness evaluation of GDIT’s initial proposal before establishing a competitive range. Because the agency determined that GDIT’s cost/price proposal was incomplete, the agency properly considered cost/price in establishing the competitive range.
GDIT also challenged virtually every aspect of the technical evaluations, as well as the best-value determination. After reviewing the record, GAO found that the agency’s evaluations were reasonable and well-documented, and provided no basis to sustain the protest.
General Dynamics Information Technology Inc. is represented by Michael D. McGill, Thomas L. McGovern III, Christine Reynolds, and Thomas A. Pettit of Hogan Lovells US LLP. Leidos Innovations Corporation is represented by Kevin P. Mullen, James A. Tucker, Sandeep N. Nandivada, and R. Locke Bell of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The government is represented by Kenneth W. Sachs, Bree A. Ermentrout and David C. Morzenti of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; and Major Meghan M. Poirier of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
