Dorado Services, Inc.

B-411691.4 Nov 18, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dorado Services, Inc., of Sanford, Florida, protests the award of a contract to GEO International Management, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3047-15-R-0011 for waste collection services. Dorado argues that GEO's proposal was facially non-compliant with the RFP's subcontracting limitations, making the proposal ineligible for award. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Dorado Services, Inc. File:  B-411691.4 Date:  November 18, 2016 Joseph M. Goldstein, Esq., and Andrew E. Schwartz, Esq., Shutts & Bowen LLP, for the protester. Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., and Nicholas T. Solosky, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for GEO International Management, LLC, the intervenor. Phillip E. Reiman, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the awardee’s proposal did not comply with the solicitation’s limitation on subcontracting provisions is denied where the proposal, on its face, does not show that the awardee has not agreed to comply with the subcontracting limitation, and whether the awardee will comply is a matter of contract administration, not for review by our Office. DECISION Dorado Services, Inc., of Sanford, Florida, protests the award of a contract to GEO International Management, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3047-15-R-0011 for waste collection services.  Dorado argues that GEO’s proposal was facially non-compliant with the RFP’s subcontracting limitations, making the proposal ineligible for award. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 11, 2015, as a total set-aside for historically underutilized business zone contractors, sought proposals to provide municipal solid waste collection and disposal services at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.  RFP at 1, 14.  The RFP contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract consisting of one base year, and four option years, to the responsible offeror who submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer.  Id. at 45-85, 167.  Two proposals were received by the July 27 closing date, one from GEO and one from Dorado.  On October 29, 2015, the agency selected Dorado for award of the contract.  However, after a protest filed by GEO, the agency decided to take corrective action by reevaluating proposals and making a new award decision.  Supp. Protest at 2.  On September 13, 2016, the agency awarded the contract to GEO, which resulted in Dorado filing a protest with our Office on September 21, and this supplemental protest on September 22.  In its initial protest Dorado argued that GEO’s technical proposal did not comply with the limitations on subcontracting provisions found at 13 C.F.R. § 125.6.  Protest at 7-8.  Our office dismissed the initial protest on September 30, as the allegations were untimely challenges to the terms of the solicitation.  However, this supplemental protest remained as a timely challenge to the agency’s evaluation of GEO’s proposal.  DISCUSSION Dorado argues that GEO’s proposal did not comply, on its face, with the RFP’s subcontracting limitations, specifically Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-3, which was to be incorporated into the resulting contract.  Supp. Protest at 10.  The agency responds that there is nothing on the face of GEO’s proposal that should have led the government to conclude that the awardee was not going to comply with the solicitation’s subcontracting limitations.  We see no basis to question the agency’s evaluation. An agency’s judgment as to whether a small business offeror can comply with a limitation on subcontracting provision is generally a matter of responsibility.  Ashridge, Inc., B-408469, Sept. 27, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 250 at 6. However, where a proposal, on its face, should lead an agency to the conclusion that an offeror has not agreed to comply with the subcontracting limitation, the matter is one of the proposal’s acceptability.  EcoAnalysts, Inc., B-406233 et al., Mar. 19, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 169 at 3. In this regard, a proposal that fails to conform to a material term or condition of the solicitation, such as the subcontracting limitation, is unacceptable and may not form the basis for an award.  Id.