Beltway Transportation Service

B-411458 Jul 28, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Beltway Transportation Service, located in Forestville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to RHG Group, Inc., located in Washington, DC, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 961002, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, for shuttle bus services. Beltway challenges the Army's evaluation of its price proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Beltway Transportation Service File: B-411458 Date: July 28, 2015 Michael Davis for the protester. Capt. Ahsan M. Nasar, Department of the Army, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Beltway Transportation Service, located in Forestville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to RHG Group, Inc., located in Washington, DC, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 961002, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, for shuttle bus services. Beltway challenges the Army’s evaluation of its price proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFQ--which it also identified (both in the solicitation itself and in the agency report) as request for proposals (RFP) No. BV523390--via the General Services Administration’s (GSA) e-Buy system on February 25, 2015, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 procedures.[1] Contracting Officer’s (CO’s) Statement at 2; Agency Report (AR) at 2. The solicitation, which was set aside for small businesses, was issued to offerors holding Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts under General Services Administration (GSA) Transportation, Delivery and Relocation Solutions, Schedule 48. RFQ at 1. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a task order, for a one-year base period and four option years, to provide shuttle services for the Defense Health Agency, Administration and Management Directorate. Id. The solicitation established a lowest-price, technically-acceptable selection process, considering the following non-price factors: (1) technical approach; (2) experience; (3) management approach; (4) past performance; and (5) quality control approach. RFQ at 11. In order to be found technically acceptable overall, an offeror had to be found acceptable under each of the five non-price factors. Id. The solicitation advised offerors to clearly identify how their non-price proposals related to their pricing approaches and to use the labor categories specified in their GSA schedule contracts. RFQ at 2-3. Offerors were to submit price proposals in two formats: (1) a pricing sheet providing monthly prices for the shuttle services; and (2) a supplemental pricing worksheet providing a detailed breakdown of the offeror’s proposed pricing, including the identified labor, as well as all other direct costs, such as materials, equipment, travel, shipping, and any other costs associated with the performance of the resulting order. RFQ at 7. The solicitation instructed offerors to clearly outline any discounts to their GSA schedule prices in the supplemental pricing worksheets. Id. The agency received five proposals prior to the March 27 due date. AR at 3. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) found that Beltway’s proposal was technically acceptable, but concluded that Beltway’s price proposal was unacceptable, rendering Beltway ineligible to receive the award. AR, Tab 9, Consensus Evaluation Report at 8-9. Specifically, the TEP found that Beltway’s proposal lacked sufficient supplemental pricing data, and contained pricing data that was not aligned with Beltway’s GSA schedule. Id. at 9. The CO elaborated on the TEP’s finding during Beltway’s debriefing, noting that Beltway’s price breakdown contained summary data that lacked a level of pricing detail sufficient to determine Beltway’s proposed price as fair and reasonable and in line with its GSA Schedule pricing.[2] AR, Tab 12, CO’s Response to Beltway’s Questions Following the Debriefing. The agency issued an order to RHG Group, Inc. on April 10. CO’s Statement at 3. Unsuccessful offerors were notified on April 16, and Beltway filed this protest on April 24. DISCUSSION Beltway challenges the agency’s evaluation of its price proposal, arguing that the evaluation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the requirements in the solicitation. Essentially, Beltway disagrees with the agency’s finding that it failed to submit sufficiently detailed pricing information.