B-297790.4, T Square Logistics Services Corporation--Costs, April 26, 2006

B-297790.4 Apr 26, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights T Square Logistics Services Corporation requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protests challenging the award of a contract to Data Monitor Systems, Inc., by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA6643-05-R-0006, for base operating support (BOS) services at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana. We recommend that the Air Force reimburse T Square's protest costs. View Decision B-297790.4, T Square Logistics Services Corporation--Costs, April 26, 2006 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: T Square Logistics Services Corporation--Costs File: B-297790.4 Date: April 26, 2006 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and David J. Ginsberg, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Government Accountability Office recommends that protester be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing protests where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to protests which were clearly meritorious as indicated by the fact that the corrective action was in response to –outcome prediction— alternative dispute resolution conducted by GAO attorney after the agency report has been filed. 2. Where agency downgrades the protester's past performance to –little confidence— because it lacks experience in several functional areas covered by the solicitation and this directly resulted in a higher priced proposal being selected for award, and agency conducts discussions but does not mention to the protester this evaluated lack of experience, the agency has failed to conduct meaningful discussions. DECISION T Square Logistics Services Corporation requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protests challenging the award of a contract to Data Monitor Systems, Inc., by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA6643-05-R-0006, for base operating support (BOS) services at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana. We recommend that the Air Force reimburse T Square's protest costs. The RFP, issued June 6, 2005, contemplated the award of a combined fixed-price and time-and-materials contract for 1 base year with nine 1-year options. The solicited BOS services included (1) base supply function, (2) motor vehicle management function, (3) traffic management function, (4) transient aircraft services, (5) recurring real property maintenance function, (6) fuels function, (7) airfield management function, and (8) meteorological function. The RFP provided for offerors to meet certain minimum qualification requirements, and to submit technical proposals addressing the program management/staffing and financial plan subfactors, which would be evaluated on a –technical acceptability— basis. The RFP provided that past performance was to be evaluated for –recency,— that is, currently ongoing or completed within the last 3 years; –relevancy,— based on the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the contracts, including the extent of performance by teaming partners and subcontractors; and quality of performance on referenced contracts. This evaluation would result in an overall confidence performance risk assessment of the offeror's ability to successfully perform the proposed effort. The possible confidence ratings, listed in descending order of quality, were –high confidence,— –significant confidence,— –confidence,— –unknown confidence,— –little confidence,— and –no confidence.— RFP sect. M-3.4. Ten firms, including T Square and Data Monitor, submitted offers by the closing date for receipt of proposals. All offerors were determined to meet the minimum qualifications, and one offeror was determined to be technically unacceptable. The agency conducted written discussions with the remaining nine offerors during which evaluation notices were issued to each offeror. After discussions were concluded, final proposal revisions were requested and evaluated.