ProMaintenance Services, LLC

B-412958 Jul 18, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ProMaintenance Services, LLC (PMS), of Scottsdale, Arizona, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4800-15-R-0001 issued by the Department of the Air Force for custodial/janitorial services at Langley Air Force Base and Fort Eustis Army Base. PMS contends that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions and improperly evaluated its technical proposal. 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:   ProMaintenance Services, LLC File:  B-412958 Date:  July 18, 2016 Michelle F. Kantor, Esq., and Manju Gupta, Esq., McDonald Hopkins LLC, for the protester. Lawrence M. Anderson, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  The agency’s discussions with protester were reasonable and meaningful where the agency repeatedly advised the protester of the basis for determining that its proposal was technically unacceptable. 2.  Protester’s assertion that the agency applied an undisclosed and unreasonable staffing estimate in evaluating proposals is denied where the agency considered the protester’s approach, and informed the protester during discussions that its staffing was inadequate. DECISION ProMaintenance Services, LLC (PMS), of Scottsdale, Arizona, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4800-15-R-0001 issued by the Department of the Air Force for custodial/janitorial services at Langley Air Force Base and Fort Eustis Army Base. PMS contends that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions and improperly evaluated its technical proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 6, 2015, the RFP was issued as an 8(a) set-aside for small businesses. RFP at 1. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, for a one-year base period and four one-year option periods, on a lowest-priced, technically-acceptable basis. Id. at 81, 83. Offerors were required to ensure that custodial services would be performed in a manner that maintains satisfactory facility conditions and presents a clean, neat, and professional appearance. RFP, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 116. As relevant here, the required custodial services at Ft. Eustis were grouped into 13 contract line item numbers (CLINs) that defined the necessary services and established the required frequencies of performance. RFP at 6-14. The RFP established three evaluation factors: price, technical, and past performance. Id. at 83. The technical factor included three subfactors: personnel, quality control, and transition plan. Id. at 84. As relevant here, the solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated under the personnel subfactor to determine if the offeror was proposing “a sufficient number” of personnel.[1] Id. To be eligible for award, proposals must have received an acceptable rating under each technical subfactor. Id. Finally, the RFP advised offerors that a competitive range could be established, and could be limited for purposes of efficiency in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation § 15.306(c). Id. at 86. On September 9, 2015, eight offerors, including PMS, submitted proposals. For staffing at Ft. Eustis, PMS’s proposal stated that it was proposing [deleted] full time equivalent personnel (FTEs) [deleted] for each contract performance period. AR, Tab 17, PMS Proposal, at 9. The agency evaluated PMS’s proposal as unacceptable on the basis of insufficient staffing. AR, Tab 23, Interim Proposal Analysis Report (PAR), at 15. Specifically, the agency established a manpower estimate, based on historical performance and International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA) standards,[2] concluding that 26 FTEs was the minimum level of staffing that would be necessary to meet the solicitation’s requirements. Id. On November 18, the agency opened discussions with PMS, advising PMS, among other things, that its proposed level of staffing for Ft. Eustis was insufficient. Id. at 16. PMS responded by asserting that its proposed staffing levels were based on “our proven methods of operations, integrated work management approach, our productivity improvement features, and the automated tools and technologies that we will bring, and use, on this contract,” further explaining that it had “[used] these same methods for staffing” under various other contracts. AR, Tab 12, Evaluation Notice (EN) No. PMS-T3, at 1-2.