American West Laundry Distributors

B-413377 Sep 27, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American West Laundry Distributors (AWLD), of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to No Fuss Services, of Peoria, Arizona, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3016-16-R-0025 for laundry services at Joint Base San Antonio, located in Lackland, Texas. AWLD argues that the agency improperly found No Fuss' proposal to be technically acceptable. 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:  American West Laundry Distributors File:  B-413377 Date:  September 27, 2016 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Kristin E. Zachman, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, PC, for the protester. Nicole Carter, Esq., and Meghan Leemon, Esq., Watson & Associates, LLC, for No Fuss Services, the intervenor. Tedd J. Shimp, 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 agency unreasonably found awardee’s proposal to be acceptable in a lowest-price, technically acceptable procurement is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION American West Laundry Distributors (AWLD), of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to No Fuss Services, of Peoria, Arizona, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3016-16-R-0025 for laundry services at Joint Base San Antonio, located in Lackland, Texas.  AWLD argues that the agency improperly found No Fuss’ proposal to be technically acceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on February 22, 2016, sought proposals from eligible small businesses to provide laundry and dry cleaning services at Joint Base San Antonio for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  RFP at 72.  The RFP contemplated various services including pickup and delivery scheduling, receipt, storage, transportation and issuance of linens, as well as laundry and dry cleaning services.  Id. at 73-74.  Award of a single contract was to be made to the proposal offering the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors.  Id. at 28.  Proposals were to be evaluated considering two non-price factors:  technical acceptability and past performance.  Id. at 28-29.  The technical acceptability factor included two subfactors, technical approach and quality control plan.  Id.  Both factors were to be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id. at 28-30. As relevant to AWLD’s challenges, both the RFP’s instructions to offerors and the evaluation criteria required offerors to explain their methodology for accomplishing the requirements of the performance work statement (PWS).  Id. at 26, 28-29.  The RFP notes, “[o]f particular interest in this Technical Approach is the offeror’s approach to storing a large volume of laundered items . . .  at the Contractor’s facility while awaiting return delivery. . . .”  Id.  The technical approach subfactor further states the “requirement is met when the offeror provides a sound business approach to accomplish all aspects of the PWS.”  Id. at 29. Under the past performance factor, the agency was to examine an offeror’s recent, relevant past performance record to assess the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform as proposed.  Id at 29.  Offerors were to submit a maximum of five previous contracts performed within the last three years of the solicitation release date.  Id.  Relevant contracts were defined as “[p]resent/past performance effort involving similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”  Id.  A rating of not relevant was defined as “effort involving little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”  Id. at 30.  Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information was so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating could be assigned were to receive an unknown past performance rating.  Unknown past performance was to be considered as acceptable under the stated rating scheme.  Id. at 30. Three proposals were received, including those from AWLD and No Fuss.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 4, Price Competition Memorandum, at 2.  No Fuss submitted a price of $4,836,391.50 and AWLD submitted a price of $4,852,920.00.  Id.  No Fuss’ proposal received acceptable ratings under both the technical and past performance factors.  Id.