Advanced Business Solutions

B-412937.2 Jul 07, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Advance Business Solutions (ABS), of New Orleans, Louisiana, protests the evaluation of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-14-R-0042, issued by the Department of the Army for grounds maintenance services. ABS challenges the Army's evaluation of its staffing approach as unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Advance Business Solutions File:  B-412937.2 Date:  July 7, 2016 Ron Ealey, Advance Business Solutions. Evan C. Williams, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms. DECISION Advance Business Solutions (ABS), of New Orleans, Louisiana, protests the evaluation of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-14-R-0042, issued by the Department of the Army for grounds maintenance services.  ABS challenges the Army’s evaluation of its staffing approach as unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on April 7, 2015, as a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, under the commercial item provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, and source selection provisions of FAR subpart 15.3.  RFP at 80.[1]  The solicitation sought grounds maintenance services at Fort Hood, Texas, for a base year and four 1-year options.  Id. at 25.  Award under the RFP was to be made to the lowest-price, technically-acceptable proposal, considering the following evaluation factors:  technical capability; past performance; and price.  Id. at 79, 81.  The technical capability factor included the following three subfactors:  (1) staffing approach; (2) performance management; and (3) proposed equipment and supplies.  Id.  Relevant here is the staffing approach subfactor, for which the RFP provided the following: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed staffing approach to ensure adequacy and soundness of the Offeror’s workforce, ensuring sufficient labor hours and skill mix for performing all functions stated in the PWS (See TE D [technical exhibit D] for the Government’s Baseline Staffing Estimate). Id. at 81.  The technical capability factor was to be assessed as acceptable or unacceptable, based upon the subfactor ratings.  If any of the subfactors were determined to be unacceptable, the overall technical capability factor was to be rated as unacceptable and the offeror’s proposal would not be considered for award.  Id.  Nine offerors, including ABS, submitted proposals.  The Army formed a source selection evaluation board (SSEB), which evaluated the proposals and submitted its evaluation report to the source selection authority (SSA).  Agency Report (AR), Tab H, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).  During the evaluation process, the Army found wide variances in pricing, and after analyzing these differences, concluded that the solicitation contained inaccurate information concerning baseline staffing in RFP technical exhibit D.  AR, Tab H, SSDD, at 2.  The contracting officer (CO) decided to amend the solicitation, provide all offerors with a new technical exhibit D, conduct discussions, and request that all offerors update the staffing approach in their proposals.  Id.  The agency issued a memorandum on February 5, 2016, to open discussions, along with an amendment modifying technical exhibit D to change the staffing baseline to 1,600 hours.  CO Declaration at 1, citing AR, Tab B, Invitations to Discussions, Feb. 5, 2016.  Also attached to this memorandum was a pricing spreadsheet which offerors were to complete.  AR, Tab B, Invitations to Discussions, attach.  The memorandum instructed offerors as follows: If any of your proposed staffing hours deviate from the baseline staffing hours provided in the corrected [technical exhibit D] (attached) in this letter, it is imperative that you fully explain the deviation in column V of the spreadsheet tabs. CO Declaration at 2.  The agency held discussions with all offerors.  By letter of February 12, closing discussions, the agency specifically informed ABS that it had not fully explained its deviations from the baseline staffing hours provided in the corrected technical exhibit D, as required by the February 5 memorandum.  Agency Request for Dismissal, exh.