DZSP 21, LLC

B-410486.4 Jul 22, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DZSP 21 LLC, of Hagatna, Guam, requests reconsideration of our January 2, 2015, decision sustaining the protest of Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC, of Greenville, South Carolina, regarding the award of a contact to DZSP under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62742-13-R-1150, issued by the Department of the Navy for base operations support services for the Joint Region Marianas on the island of Guam. DZSP argues that our decision was wrong as a matter of law and fact. We deny the request. We deny the request. View Decision 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:      DZSP 21 LLC--Reconsideration File:                B-410486.4 Date:              July 22, 2015 Alan A. Pemberton, Esq., Robert Nichols, Esq., Nooree Lee, Esq., Stephanie Barclay, Esq., Jeffrey Bozman, Esq., and Anuj Vohra, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for the protester. William A. Roberts III, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., Esq., Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and George E. Petel, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC, an intervenor. James J. Schubert, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where the protester does not show that the prior decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification of the decision.  DECISION DZSP 21 LLC, of Hagatna, Guam, requests reconsideration of our January 2, 2015, decision sustaining the protest of Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC, of Greenville, South Carolina, regarding the award of a contact to DZSP under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62742-13-R-1150, issued by the Department of the Navy for base operations support services for the Joint Region Marianas on the island of Guam.[1]  DZSP argues that our decision was wrong as a matter of law and fact. We deny the request. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of a cost reimbursement-type contract for a 12-month base period with four 1-year options and an additional three 1-year award options.  RFP at BATES 0005-11.[2]  In general terms the contractor was required to perform a variety of facility operations and maintenance services in accordance with the solicitation’s performance work statement, which was organized by task area or “annex” (e.g., facility management, port operations).[3]  RFP at BATES 0014.  The RFP established that contract award would be made on a best-value basis, based on six evaluation factors:  past performance; occupational safety; staffing and resources; technical approach; small business utilization; and cost.  Id. at BATES 0098-108.  The RFP also stated that past performance was approximately equal in importance to the other four non-cost evaluation factors combined, and that all five non-cost factors, when combined, were approximately equal in importance to cost.  Id. at BATES 0098. Eight offerors, including DZSP and Flour, submitted proposals by the closing date.  A Navy technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated offerors’ non-cost proposals using various adjectival rating schemes that were set forth in the solicitation:  outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable; and with regard to past performance, substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence.  Id. at BATES 0108.  The solicitation also established that offerors’ cost proposals were not to be rated, but evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and realism.  Id. at BATES 0098-99.  The Navy’s initial evaluation of the DZSP and Fluor proposals was as follows:   DZSP Fluor Past Performance Substantial Confidence Substantial Confidence Occupational Safety Outstanding Outstanding Staffing and Resources Unacceptable Unacceptable Technical Approach Acceptable Outstanding Small Business Utilization Outstanding Good Proposed Cost $499,421,018 $546,518,893 Evaluated Cost $555,823,000 $617,439,000 AR, Tab 7, Source Selection Advisory Council Report, Feb.