Al Mutawa & Sahni Company, WLL

B-411534 Aug 14, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Al Mutawa & Sahni Company, W.L.L. (MASC), of Doha, Qatar, protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Tamimi Global Company LTD, of Dammam, Saudi Arabia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA5702-15-T-0001, for custodial services at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. MASC challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation. 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:  Al Mutawa & Sahni Company, W.L.L. File:  B-411534 Date:  August 14, 2015 Joseph Whitcomb, Esq., and Daniel McAuliffe, Esq., Whitcomb Law, PC, for the protester. Capt. Bertha Diaz, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s determination that protester’s proposal was technically unacceptable for failing to provide required experience is denied where record shows agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION Al Mutawa & Sahni Company, W.L.L. (MASC), of Doha, Qatar, protests the Department of the Air Force’s award of a contract to Tamimi Global Company LTD, of Dammam, Saudi Arabia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA5702-15-T-0001, for custodial services at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar.  MASC challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on December 1, 2014 under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, provided for the award of a fixed‑price contract for custodial services for a base year with four 1‑year options.  The solicitation provided that award would be made on a lowest‑priced, technically acceptable basis, considering the following three evaluation factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  RFQ at 24.  The technical evaluation factor consisted of two subfactors:  technical narrative and management of employees/resources.  Id. at 25.  The RFQ instructed that quotations should be submitted in three separate volumes, one for each evaluation factor.  RFQ at 21.  Each quotation volume was, to the greatest extent possible, to be written on a “stand-alone basis,” with a “minimum of cross‑referencing to other volumes of the quote.”  Id. The RFQ explained the evaluation and award selection process as follows.  First, the agency would rank all quotations in order of price.  Id. at 29.  Next, starting with the lowest‑priced quotation, the agency would conduct a technical evaluation of each quotation, until two or more quotations were found to be technically acceptable.  Id.  Finally, the agency would, starting with the lowest-priced technically acceptable quotation, evaluate past performance.  Id.  If the firm submitting the lowest-priced technically acceptable quotation was found to have acceptable past performance, award would be made to that firm.  Id.  Otherwise, the agency would evaluate the next lowest-priced technically acceptable quotation until a firm was evaluated as having acceptable past performance.  Id. The agency received 17 quotations in response to the RFQ, including MASC’s and Tamimi’s.  The agency’s initial technical evaluation found that many firms had submitted unacceptable quotations due to “minor oversights in proposal preparation.”  Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 4.  As a result, the agency decided to modify the RFQ to change the evaluation criteria.  Id. On March 6, 2015, the agency issued an amendment to the RFQ, which removed the technical evaluation subfactors, and replaced them with a single “experience” factor.  RFQ amend. 2, at 120.  The amended solicitation no longer required a firm to provide a technical narrative and a plan to manage employees/resources under its technical volume.  Id.  Instead, the amended solicitation only required the submission of contract(s) that demonstrate the firm’s experience.  Id.  On March 20 and again on March 27, the agency issued two additional amendments, which further clarified the experience factor requirement.  CO Statement at 5.  Specifically, the solicitation required a firm to provide at least one contract (and no more than three contracts) to “demonstrate [its] experience in managing a workforce of 35 personnel or greater in a multiple facility installation/complex support . . . where operations took place in the U.S. Central Commands . . . Area of Responsibility (AOR) . . . valued at $500K (USD) or greater, annually.”  RFQ amend.