Arbeit LLC

B-411049 Apr 27, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ARBEiT, LLC, of Warren, Michigan, a small business, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-14-R-0031, which was issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for equipment related services. ARBEiT contends that its proposal was improperly eliminated from the competition because the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal was unacceptable under two evaluation factors. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. 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: ARBEiT, LLC File: B-411049 Date: April 27, 2015 Steven J. Koprince, Esq., and Amanda M. Wilwert, Esq., Koprince Law LLC, for the protester. Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Kandis C. Gaines, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation and rejection of a proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION ARBEiT, LLC,[1] of Warren, Michigan, a small business, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-14-R-0031, which was issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for equipment related services. ARBEiT contends that its proposal was improperly eliminated from the competition because the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal was unacceptable under two evaluation factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army is procuring three separate, multiple-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts known as the TACOM Strategic Service Solutions (TS3) Family of Contracts (FoC), for the following services: (1) knowledge based services; (2) equipment related services (ERS); and (3) research and development services. RFP at 2.[2] On August 1, 2014, the Army issued the solicitation for the ERS contract for maintenance, repair and overhaul, equipment modification, installation of equipment, and technical representative services to keep machines, systems, and vehicles functioning or in working order. Id. at 15. The ERS contract will consist of two pools of contractors--a restricted pool set-aside for small business concerns, and an unrestricted pool for other than small businesses. Id. at 2-3. The RFP anticipates that the Army will make 13 awards, consisting of eight small business awards and five unrestricted awards. Id. at 3. The ordering period for the ERS contract will be 5 years from the date of the contract awards. Id. The maximum quantity of services for all orders against the ERS contract is $1.1 billion. Id. at 2. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value basis, considering four factors: (1) experience; (2) technical; (3) cost/price; and (4) small business participation (SBP). Id. at 86. For purposes of award, the experience factor is more important than the technical factor. The technical factor is slightly more important than the cost/price factor. The cost/price factor is slightly more important than the SBP factor. All of the non-cost/price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the cost/price factor. Id. at 87. As relevant here, the RFP required that proposals “contain all pertinent representations, certifications, and the specified information required for evaluation of the proposal,” and stated that “[e]xtreme care and attention should be given to ensure that all required items are included in the proposal.” Id. at 72. In addition, the RFP advised that “[t]he Government may reject any offeror’s proposal that fails to meaningfully comply with the Proposal Preparation Instructions specified in Section L of this solicitation.” Id. at 85. Regarding the experience factor, the RFP required an offeror to submit no more than two references demonstrating relevant experience for each of the following areas: L.4.1.2.1 – Service contracts performed either as the prime contractor that involved contractor team arrangement(s) (as defined by [Federal Acquisition Regulation §] 9.601) with at least three other organizations not including the prime contractor, or service contracts performed as the prime contractor that involved the award of subcontracts to at least three other organizations.