Charles F. Day & Associates, LLC

B-411164 Jun 02, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Charles F. Day & Associates, LLC (CFDA), of Stafford, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Loyal Source Government Services (LSGS), of Orlando, Florida, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-14-R-0137, to provide field support training services for specified military equipment at various locations around the world. CFDA asserts that the agency's evaluation under the solicitation's non-price evaluation factors was flawed. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Charles F. Day & Associates, LLC File: B-411164 Date: June 2, 2015 John A. Tacker, Esq., and Kale D. Knisley, Esq., Charles F. Day & Associates, LLC, for the protester. Isaias Alba IV, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., and Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Loyal Source Government Services, LLC, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably assigned a weakness to protester’s proposal for failing to meaningfully address the solicitation’s recruiting and hiring requirements, concluding that, instead, protester relied on its current employment of the incumbent workforce. 2. Where protester received the highest possible past performance rating, none of its complaints regarding the agency’s past performance evaluation provide a basis for sustaining its protest. DECISION Charles F. Day & Associates, LLC (CFDA), of Stafford, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army’s award of a contract to Loyal Source Government Services (LSGS), of Orlando, Florida, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-14-R-0137, to provide field support training services for specified military equipment at various locations around the world. CFDA asserts that the agency’s evaluation under the solicitation’s non‑price evaluation factors was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 8, 2014, the agency issued RFP No. W15QKN-14-R-0137, seeking proposals from service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB)[1] to provide various support services for the M777A2 howitzer, the M119A2 howitzer, and the M11A1 improved position azimuth determining system (IPADS).[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 2, 26. The solicitation identified various labor categories/positions for which offerors were required to propose fully-loaded fixed rates, and provided that award would be made on a best-value basis considering the following evaluation factors: management/technical approach, past performance, and price.[3] RFP at 5-25, 67, 69. The solicitation contemplated award of a contract with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Id. On October 29, the agency issued RFP amendment No. 2. Among other things, this amendment added a provision notifying offerors that the agency would “evaluate the Offeror’s proposed recruiting and hiring processes,” and specifically warned that “[a] technical approach relying only or primarily on retaining incumbent personnel is not an adequate technical approach nor an adequate description of the Offeror[’]s capabilities.” AR, Tab 3, RFP amend. 2, at 10. On November 5, proposals were submitted by four offerors, including CFDA and LSGS. In evaluating CFDA’s proposal under the management/technical factor, the agency identified certain strengths, but also assigned a weakness based on the agency’s assessment that CFDA’s proposal failed to meaningfully address CFDA’s recruiting and hiring process and, instead, reflected CFDA’s primary reliance on its current employment of the incumbent workforce. AR, Tab 6, Management/Technical Evaluation (CFDA), at 1. In criticizing this aspect of CFDA’s proposal, the agency stated: The proposal provides information about retaining current staff, as well as the annual turnover rate for employees. However the proposal does not provide processes to recruit or hire new employees. Id. at 1-3. In evaluating LSGS’s proposal under the management/technical factor, the agency identified various strengths, including a strength for its recruiting and hiring process, and no weaknesses.