L&J Building Maintenance, LLC

B-411827 Oct 27, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights L&J Building Maintenance, LLC, of Topeka, Kansas, protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Hamilton Alliance, Inc. (HAI), of West Palm Beach, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-15-D-7904, for refuse collection and disposal, and recycling services at the Naval Support Activity Crane, Indiana. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal as meeting the minimum experience and past performance requirements. 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:  L&J Building Maintenance, LLC File:  B-411827 Date:  October 27, 2015 Lawrence Sklute, Esq., and Ethan Brown, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester. William A. Shook, Esq., for Hamilton Alliance, Inc., the intervenor. Kenneth G. Wilson, Esq., and Laura Arnolds, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s experience and past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION L&J Building Maintenance, LLC, of Topeka, Kansas, protests the Department of the Navy’s award of a contract to Hamilton Alliance, Inc. (HAI), of West Palm Beach, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-15-D-7904, for refuse collection and disposal, and recycling services at the Naval Support Activity Crane, Indiana.  The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s proposal as meeting the minimum experience and past performance requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-side, sought proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract, with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options, for refuse collection and disposal, and recycling services.  The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal, with the evaluation of technical acceptability to be assessed under the following four technical factors:  experience, management approach, past performance, and safety.  RFP at 1, 5, 10‑13.  An unacceptable rating for any one of the four technical factors would render a proposal technically unacceptable overall.  RFP at 5.  Under the experience factor, the RFP required offerors to identify a minimum of two and a maximum of five relevant projects that best demonstrate their experience on “relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP.”  RFP at 10.  The RFP defined “relevant project” as “refuse collection and disposal and also collecting, processing, and selling recyclable materials described in the solicitation.”  Id.  The past performance evaluation was to consider how well the offeror performed the relevant projects submitted under the experience factor, as well as the performance of other projects “currently documented in known sources.”  RFP at 12.  The RFP advised offerors that “[m]ore emphasis will be placed on more relevant projects.”  Id. L&J, HAI, and two other offerors submitted timely proposals.  Of relevance here, the protester’s proposal included three past performance references.  The first, contract No. [DELETED], required the contractor to provide “[r]efuse collection and disposal” and “operation of [a] recycling center” at [DELETED].  L&J Past Performance References at 5.  L&J’s second past performance reference, contract No. [DELETED], was for all labor, transportation, equipment, supplies, and supervision necessary to “collect and transport refuse and recyclables,” and for “the operation of Convenience Center(s),” at [DELETED].  Id. at 6.  The description of the second contract specifically referred to the services as “solid waste collection and disposal” and “refuse collection and disposal.”  Id.  The protester’s third and final past performance reference, contract No. [DELETED], was for “refuse and recycling services,” to include “recycling collection services,” at [DELETED].  Id. at 7.  HAI, the incumbent contractor, submitted a proposal that included five past performance references.  The awardee’s first two past performance references, contract Nos.