B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4, Trajen, Inc.; Maytag Aircraft Corporation, July 29, 2005

B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4, Trajen, Inc.; Maytag Aircraft Corporation, July 29, 2005 TITLE: B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4, Trajen, Inc.; Maytag Aircraft Corporation, July 29, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4 DATE: July 29, 2005 ****************************************************************************************************** B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4, Trajen, Inc.; Maytag Aircraft Corporation, July 29, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Trajen, Inc.; Maytag Aircraft Corporation File: B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4 Date: July 29, 2005 Thomas O. Mason, Esq., Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Rachel L. Semanchik, Esq., and Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., Williams Mullen PC, for Trajen, Inc.; and J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., and Michael J. Noonan, Esq., Halloran & Sage LLP, for Maytag Aircraft Corporation, the protesters. Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., Jennifer M. Miller, Esq., and Christine F. Mayhew, Esq., Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, for LB&B Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Timothy A. Raezer, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Discussions were meaningful where agency led protesters into areas of their proposals requiring additional information or improvement, including staffing levels and maintenance plans. 2. Agency's use of three adjectival ratings instead of five, as called for by solicitation, did not render evaluation unreasonable, since adjectival ratings are simply a guide for use by contracting officials, and numerical scores as well as supporting narratives provided means of differentiating among proposals that would have been provided by additional adjectival ratings. 3. Technical evaluations of protesters' proposals under staffing and other subfactors were reasonable where they are consistent with content of proposals; for example, protesters' proposals offered fewer personnel than agency's estimated targets and personnel who lacked required qualifications, and failed to reasonably assure the government of access to preventive maintenance software. 4. Technical evaluation of awardee's proposal was unobjectionable where agency reasonably found that proposed staffing levels were appropriate and that personnel were qualified for proposed positions. DECISION Trajen, Inc. and Maytag Aircraft Corporation protest the award of a contract to LB&B Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0600-04-R-0032, for fuel receipt, storage, and issue services at the Government-Owned-Contractor Operated (GOCO) facilities at Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP), Norfolk, Virginia, and aircraft refueling services for Naval Station (NS) Norfolk and Naval Amphibious Base (NAB), Little Creek, Virginia. Trajen and Maytag challenge the technical evaluations of their own and LB&B's proposals, the conduct of discussions, and the source selection. We deny the protests. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract (with cost-reimbursable line items) for a period of 5 years, to provide necessary labor, management, and equipment to operate five fuel terminals. Three of the terminals--Craney Island, Yorktown, and Sewell's Point--comprised the DFSP, and two--NS Norfolk and NAB Little Creek--comprised the alongside aircraft refueling facilities. Craney Island, the largest single government fuel storage facility in the continental U.S., is located in Portsmouth, Virginia and is some 42 road-miles southeast of Yorktown and 20 road-miles southwest of Sewell's Point, which is located on NS Norfolk. The DFSP complex is responsible for the receipt, storage and handling, quality surveillance, shipment, and accountability of various government-owned petroleum products in support of designated Department of Defense activities. The NS Norfolk-NAB facilities are responsible for fuel storage and services for various aircraft and naval vessels. In addition to petroleum-related services, the contractor is responsible for equipment and grounds maintenance at the facilities. The RFP contained two detailed performance work statements (PWS) outlining the requirements of each performance area. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of four factors, listed in descending order of importance--operational capability, past performance, price, and socio-economic/subcontracting.