“DIGEST –
- Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s price is denied where the agency reasonably found that the protester’s price was not fair and reasonable, and therefore the protester was not eligible for award.
- Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s price is denied where the solicitation did not require a price realism evaluation.
- Protest that the agency should have rejected the awardee’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
- Protester is not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of its technical proposal where the agency reasonably found that the proposal was ineligible for award because its price was not fair and reasonable.”
“DISCUSSION – NTT raises four primary challenges to the CDC’s award of the task order to Perspecta: (1) the agency unreasonably found that NTT’s price was not fair and reasonable; (2) the agency should have found that Perspecta’s price was too low; (3) the agency should have found that Perspecta’s proposal was unacceptable under the technical evaluation factor; and (4) the agency should have assigned NTT’s proposal a higher adjectival rating under the technical evaluation factor. 7 Comments at 1. For the reasons discussed below, we find no basis to sustain the protest in connection with the first three arguments. Because we conclude that the agency reasonably found that the protester’s price was not fair and reasonable, and that the protester was therefore ineligible for award, and because the agency also reasonably found that the awardee’s proposal was technically acceptable, we conclude that the protester is not an interested party to pursue its fourth argument concerning the evaluation of its technical proposal…
Evaluation of NTT’s Price NTT argues that the CDC unreasonably found that its price was not fair and reasonable, and that its proposal was therefore ineligible for award. Comments at 50-54. The protester primarily argues that the agency failed to consider its technical approach in the evaluation of its price, and that the agency should have found its price fair and reasonable for its proposed technical approach. For the reasons discussed below, we find no basis to sustain the protest. Procuring agencies must condition the award of a contract upon a finding that the contract contains “fair and reasonable prices.” FAR 15.402(a), 15.404-1(a); see Crawford RealStreet Joint Venture, B-415193.2, B-415193.3, Apr. 2, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 121 at 9. Although task order procurements conducted under FAR subpart 16.5 are not subject to the same requirements as those conducted under FAR part 15, FAR section 16.505(b)(3) directs agencies to establish prices for task orders consistent with the policies and methods contained in FAR subpart 15.4. FAR 16.505(b)(3); Accenture Fed. Servs. LLC et al., B-417111.5 et al., Sept. 4, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 339 at 10 n.9…”
“DECISION – NTT Data Services Federal Government, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Perspecta Enterprise Services LLC, also of Herndon, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. 75D301-20-R-67883, which was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for cloud computing services. NTT argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s and awardee’s prices and technical proposals. We deny the protest.”
