SWR, Inc.--Protest and Costs, B-294266.2; B-294266.3; B-294266.4, April 22, 2005

SWR, Inc.--Protest and Costs, B-294266.2; B-294266.3; B-294266.4, April 22, 2005 TITLE: SWR, Inc.--Protest and Costs, B-294266.2; B-294266.3; B-294266.4, April 22, 2005 BNUMBER: B-294266.2; B-294266.3; B-294266.4 DATE: April 22, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: SWR, Inc.--Protest and Costs File: B-294266.2; B-294266.3; B-294266.4 Date: April 22, 2005 Benjamin M. Bowden, Esq., Albrittons, Clifton, Alverson, Moody & Bowden, PC, for the protester. J.R. Cohn, Esq., and Julius Rothlein, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency. Susan K. Chelsea, Esq., McCullogh & Associates, APC, for Starlight Corporation, Inc., an intervenor. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Determination that protester's technical proposal was unacceptable was reasonable where evaluation board found that protester's proposal included numerous weaknesses, including flawed plans for decentralized project management and tool accountability. 2. Evaluation of protester's past performance was unobjectionable where agency reasonably concluded that more recent poor performance at one of the solicitation performance sites was more probative of protester's record than performance on other contracts more remote in time or of shorter duration. 3. Request that GAO recommend payment of costs associated with prior successful protest is denied where claim was filed with contracting agency more than 60 days after protester's counsel received protected copy of protest decision; delay in receipt of publicly-releasable version of decision did not toll period for filing, and there is no evidence of compelling reason beyond protester's control that prevented it from timely filing the claim. DECISION SWR, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Starlight Corporation, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00146-04-R-9024, issued by the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) for the washing of various aircraft at three Marine Corps Air Stations (MCAS) in North and South Carolina. SWR challenges the agency's technical evaluation and seeks reimbursement of its costs incurred in pursuing an earlier protest concerning this requirement. We deny the protest and the request for reimbursement. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, to clean, wash, lubricate, and inspect various fixed and rotary-wing aircraft at three USMC installations--MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina, MCAS New River, North Carolina, and MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina. SWR was the incumbent contractor at MCAS Cherry Point and its work there represented some five percent of the current requirement; the remaining 95 percent of the requirement was performed at all three installations by large businesses under two delivery orders. Prior to issuing the RFP, USMC performed market research as to whether to set the procurement aside for Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concerns. Based on its research, the agency decided to issue the RFP as a 100-percent small business set-aside. SWR challenged the agency's decision in a protest filed in our Office. We sustained the protest, finding that the agency had not reasonably considered whether a HUBZone set-aside was required, and recommended as corrective action that the contracting officer reasonably consider whether fair market price offers would be obtained from at least two capable HUBZone small business concerns. SWR, Inc., B-294266, Oct. 6, 2004, 2004 CPD P 219. In response to our recommendation, the contracting officer conducted additional research and evaluated submissions from interested firms before determining to continue the requirement as a small business, rather than a HUBZone, set-aside. Agency Report (AR) Tab 29. Proposals were to be evaluated under a price factor and three technical factors--management plan (40 points), corporate experience (40 points), and past performance (20 points). The technical factors, when combined, were approximately equal in weight to price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was found to be the "best value" to the government. Proposals were to be scored on a five-point scale for each technical factor, and these scores then were divided by five and multiplied by the individual factor weights to arrive at final scores. Ten offerors, including SWR and Starlight, submitted proposals, which were evaluated by the technical evaluation board (TEB). In its initial evaluation, the TEB found five proposals, including Starlight's, to be technically acceptable; SWR's was among those evaluated as technically unacceptable. Based on these initial evaluations, the contracting officer determined not to conduct discussions.