Chaedrol GAO Protest Log 20240926: Alion and Corps Medical

Alion Science & Technology Corporation (B-422664)

You should not care.

Category: Cost or pricing

Date: September 10, 2024

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422664

In this case, Alion Science and Technology Corporation protests DOD Defense Threat Reduction Agency's (DTRA’s) decision not to award an IDIQ contract under RFP #HDTRA122R0009. Alion's protest centers on claims that the agency's rejection of its proposal was unreasonable and that it should have been afforded an opportunity to correct identified inconsistencies.

Inconsistencies between Alion’s cost narrative and cost spreadsheet led to the agency's conclusion that it could not evaluate the proposal for realism or reasonableness. GAO upheld the agency's evaluation, citing the clarity of the RFP requirements that indicated any inconsistencies could result in rejection, denying the protest.

Digest

Protest challenging the agency’s cost evaluation and rejection of protester’s proposal is denied where the protester’s proposal had inconsistencies between the cost narrative and cost spreadsheet, and the agency reasonably concluded that the protester’s proposal failed to comply with the terms of the solicitation and that a most probable cost could not be determined.

Corps Medical Supply, LLC (B-422516.2)

You should not care.

Category: De facto sole source, requirements

Date: September 23, 2024

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422516.2

Corps Medical Supply, LLC, located in Janesville, Wisconsin, filed a protest concerning a solicitation issued by VA for binocular indirect ophthalmoscope equipment and accessories under RFQ #36C10G24Q0092. The protest focused on allegations that the solicitation terms could lead to a de facto sole-source procurement and that certain terms were ambiguous and unduly restrictive of competition. Key grounds included:

1. De Facto Sole-Source Procurement: Corps Medical alleged that the solicitation effectively limited competition by requiring specifications that only one vendor could meet. GAO found that the agency had a reasonable expectation of competition, asserting that vendors were free to propose any solution as long as it met the specified salient characteristics.

2. Unduly Restrictive Terms: The protest also challenged a requirement for a charging solution for an extra battery, arguing it limited competition. However, VA justified this requirement as necessary to ensure consistent operational capability , which GAO deemed a rational basis.

3. Ambiguity: Finally, Corps Medical claimed that the solicitation was ambiguous concerning the requirement for an extra battery. GAO acknowledged the ambiguity but ultimately sided with the agency's interpretation, stating that the requirement for a charging solution did not imply that an extra battery was mandatory.

The protest was partially granted and partially denied. While GAO recognized the agency's delay in responding to a clearly meritorious allegation regarding ambiguity, the court ultimately found that the protest did not substantiate a clear legal violation regarding other grounds.

Digest

1. Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed is denied where the allegation that the solicitation terms created a de facto sole-source procurement is not clearly meritorious and is severable from the clearly meritorious challenge.

2. Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed is granted where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious allegation that a solicitation term was ambiguous.