R&D Training & Technical Services, Inc.

B-411152 May 12, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights R&D Training & Technical Services, Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Avalon Contracting, Inc., of Tacoma, Washington, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00189-T-G032, issued by the Department of the Navy for washer and dryer maintenance/repair services on behalf of the Navy Region Mid-Atlantic Command. R&D challenges the agency's evaluation of Avalon's quotation, alleging that the agency considered Avalon's past performance in its evaluation, inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation; and improperly conducted discussions only with Avalon. 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: R&D Training & Technical Services, Inc. File: B-411152 Date: May 12, 2015 William Dozier, Esq, and Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq., Vandeventer Black LLP, for the protester. Timothy L. Supler, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation is denied where the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION R&D Training & Technical Services, Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Avalon Contracting, Inc., of Tacoma, Washington, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00189-T-G032, issued by the Department of the Navy for washer and dryer maintenance/repair services on behalf of the Navy Region Mid-Atlantic Command. R&D challenges the agency’s evaluation of Avalon’s quotation, alleging that the agency considered Avalon’s past performance in its evaluation, inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation; and improperly conducted discussions only with Avalon.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, set aside for small business concerns, was issued under the commercial item and simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 and subpart 13.5 for washer and dryer maintenance/repair services. The RFQ anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 12‑month base period, and a 1-year option period. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Pre-Award Clearance Memorandum (Evaluation Memorandum), at 1. The RFQ stated that source selection would be made on a lowest-priced, technically-acceptable basis, considering technical approach and price factors. RFQ at 12. The RFQ provided instructions for technical submissions, including a requirement that vendors provide qualified/certified technicians for all makes and models of appliances, and stated that all maintenance and repair work was to be performed only by technicians with such qualifications. RFQ at 8. Vendors were instructed to identify all proposed personnel; describe such personnel’s experience, education, and training; and/or provide their certifications or licenses. Id. at 12. The RFQ stated that in order to be considered acceptable, quotations had to address each of the technical areas in sufficient detail to allow the government to determine that the vendor possessed the ability to perform the required work; and cautioned vendors that simply reiterating the requirements and stating that the vendor was capable would be considered unacceptable. Id. at 13. The agency received three quotations, including those of R&D and Avalon.[2] AR, Tab 8, Evaluation Memorandum, at 3. As relevant here, Avalon’s technical submission identified six proposed technicians, and provided their respective certifications. The agency determined this submission to be acceptable. AR, Id. at 5. R&D submitted the work history of its six proposed personnel, and the agency also found R&D’s technical proposal to be acceptable. Id. at 9. Avalon submitted the lowest price, $304,238.40, while R&D’s price was $405,409.56.[3] AR, Tab 8, Evaluation Memorandum, at 3. The agency awarded a contract to Avalon based on its lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. After R&D was debriefed, this protest followed. DISCUSSION R&D alleges that the agency improperly considered past performance as part of the technical evaluation, and impermissibly engaged in discussions with only the awardee. Protest at 2; Comments at 5-6. The protester recounts that during a debriefing that was conducted by telephone, R&D “questioned the experience and past performance of [Avalon],” and that the contract specialist stated that Avalon provided this information in its quotation. Protest at 2. According to the protester, R&D then asked how the agency verified this information, and the contract specialist stated that it had been done by telephone. Id.