The solicitation informed offerors that orders placed under the TRI-GSM IDIQ could be fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-fee, cost-reimbursable, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and cost-plus-award-fee. The selected contractor will provide for technologies refreshment, implementation, integration and transition to operations activities supporting existing and future Department of Defense Information Network (DODIN)/Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) networking capabilities. On September 14, 2020, the agency issued the solicitation seeking proposals for a single-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. The protester argues that the agency conducted an unreasonable and unequal technical evaluation, engaged in misleading discussions on cost, improperly evaluated past performance, and made a flawed source selection determination.
HC-1028-20-R-0060, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), for the Technologies Refreshment and Implementation-Global Solution Management (TRI-GSM) program. NOVA Dine, LLC, a small business located in Scottsdale, Arizona, protests the award of a contract to Competitive Range Solutions, LLC (CRS), a small business located in Chicago, Illinois, under request for proposals (RFP) No. Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria, and where the agency’s different evaluation judgments were reasonably explained by differences in the offerors’ proposals. Protest challenging agency’s assessment of the relevancy of awardee’s past performance is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and where the protester has not demonstrated that any errors caused it competitive prejudice.ģ. Protest alleging that agency engaged in misleading discussions that led the protester to increase its proposed direct labor rates is denied where the agency accurately identified its concerns and where the protester made its own independent business judgment to raise rates rather than justify its proposed rates.Ģ. Patton, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.ġ. Strebel, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency.Īlexander O. Strouse, Esq., Cordatis LLP and Matthew Schoonover, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for Competitive Range Solutions, LLC, the intervenor.Ĭolleen A.
Schabes, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP Daniel J. Owen, Esq., William O’Reilly, Esq., and Issac D. Purcell, Jr., Esq., Joseph Berger, Esq., and Mona Adabi, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, for the protester.Ĭherie J.