Agviq, LLC

B-413586 Nov 02, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AGVIQ, LLC, a small business located in Anchorage, Alaska, challenges the award of a contract to Cape Environmental Management, Inc., of Honolulu, Hawaii, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62742-15-R-1807, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific for environmental remediation services in the NAVFAC Pacific region. AGVIQ argues that the Navy's best-value determination lacked a rational basis. 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:  AGVIQ, LLC File:  B-413586 Date:  November 2, 2016 S. Lane Tucker, Esq., and Sarah R. Langberg, Esq., Stoel Rives LLP, for the protester. Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Cynthia O. Akatugba, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for  Cape Environmental Management, Inc., the intervenor. James J. Schubert, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s best-value determination is denied where the agency’s tradeoff analysis was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.  DECISION AGVIQ, LLC, a small business located in Anchorage, Alaska, challenges the award of a contract to Cape Environmental Management, Inc., of Honolulu, Hawaii, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62742-15-R-1807, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific for environmental remediation services in the NAVFAC Pacific region.  AGVIQ argues that the Navy’s best-value determination lacked a rational basis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on June 1, 2015 with the objective of obtaining remediation services at environmentally-contaminated sites, predominantly located at Navy and Marine Corps installations, as well as at other federal agency locations.  RFP at 12.  The RFP envisioned that the work ordered under the resulting contract would be performed predominantly in Hawaii and Guam, but might include other locations within the NAVFAC Pacific area of responsibility.  Id.  The solicitation contemplated award of a cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a one-year base period, with four one-year options.  RFP, Award Fee Plan, at 1. The solicitation called for award to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer is determined to be the most advantageous to the government considering both cost and non-cost evaluation factors.  RFP at 117.  Non-cost factors included experience, safety, and past performance.  Id. at 117.  Under the solicitation’s evaluation scheme, experience and safety were of equal importance and, when combined, were equal in importance to past performance.  Id.  All of the non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost.  Id.  The importance of cost would increase, however, if offerors’ non-cost proposals “are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if cost is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government.”  Id. at 117-18.  In determining the best value, the solicitation provided that the agency “need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decision.”  Id. at 117.  For the experience and past performance factors, the solicitation permitted offerors to identify projects performed by proposed subcontractors.  Id. at 118.  The solicitation provided, however, that a subcontractor’s experience and past performance would not be given the same level of consideration as either a prime contractor or a joint venture partner’s because “there is no direct legal relationship between the Government and a subcontractor.”  Id.  For the experience factor, the RFP stated that experience would be evaluated based on the (1) complexity, (2) scope, (3) contract volume/project size and/or (4) location of the work performed relative to the requirements of the solicitation.  Id. at 119-20.  The solicitation further provided that certain types of experience “may be evaluated more favorably,” including (1) experience working for the Navy/Marine Corps, (2) experience that provides relevant innovative approaches to the performance of work described in the performance work statement (PWS), and (3) experience working in Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Marianas Islands.  Id. at 120.  For the past performance factor, the RFP stated that the evaluation would be “based upon customer satisfaction in the execution of the same recent relevant projects submitted for Factor 1 (Experience).”  Id.