Precise Management, LLC

B-411708 Oct 05, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Precise Management, LLC of McCalla, Alabama, protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124C-15-T-0015 issued by the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command, for pest management services at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. The protester argues that the agency improperly cancelled the solicitation after unreasonably evaluating the protester's proposal as technically unacceptable and the protester's proposed price as unreasonable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Precise Management, LLC File:  B-411708 Date:  October 5, 2015 Ronjiel Sharpe for the protester. Maj. Michael G. Pond, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency properly cancelled solicitation where it evaluated the proposals received as technically unacceptable and could not determine that any of the proposed prices were fair and reasonable. DECISION Precise Management, LLC of McCalla, Alabama, protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124C-15-T-0015 issued by the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command, for pest management services at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.[1]  The protester argues that the agency improperly cancelled the solicitation after unreasonably evaluating the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable and the protester’s proposed price as unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued as a total small business set-aside, sought proposals for a contractor to perform pest management services on a scheduled, unscheduled, and emergency basis as set forth in the performance work statement.  RFQ at 43.  Offerors were informed that a fixed-price contract for a base year with 4 option years would be awarded to the offeror with the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal.  Id. at 3-5.  To be technically acceptable, a proposal had to clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.  Id. at 136.  The solicitation indicated that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three factors:  technical capability, past performance, and price.  The technical capability factor was comprised of three subfactors:  (1) management approach; (2) technical experience; and (3) technical qualifications.  To receive an overall rating of acceptable, an offeror had to receive a rating of acceptable under each non-price factor and subfactor.  Id. at 134.  As it relates to the protest, under the technical experience subfactor, offerors were instructed to provide not more than five examples of contracts completed or ongoing within the past three years that were similar to the RFQ’s size and scope.  The agency then would review the identified contracts to evaluate the offeror’s experience to successfully manage and execute the solicited pest control services.  Id. at 135.   The agency received three proposals, including one from Precise Management, which were evaluated by the agency’s evaluation board.  In its proposal, Precise Management provided information regarding an ongoing pest control contract, which the firm was performing as a major subcontractor to PK Management, and a completed pest control contract, which the firm performed as a major subcontractor to Cityside Management.  Precise Management also listed another subcontract with General Dynamics Robotics Systems, but did not explain how this contract was similar in type or scope to the solicited requirements.  Agency Report (AR) exh. 14, Precise Management Technical Proposal at 20-22 (Mar. 11, 2015).  Because Precise Management did not list a dollar value for any of the three contracts, the agency requested that the protester furnish the total dollar value of the contracts identified in its technical proposal.  In response, the protester disclosed that the value of the ongoing PK Management contract was $142,410 and the value of the completed Cityside Management contract was $26,000.  The protester did not furnish the contract value for its subcontract with General Dynamics Robotics Systems.  Id. exh. 19, Protester’s Response to Request for Clarifications at 3-4 (Mar. 26, 2015).  Precise Management’s proposal was rated unacceptable under the technical experience subfactor because, as the agency noted, the protester’s work history “does not demonstrate sufficient experience to meet all requirements of PWS.”  Id. exh.