Franzosini Sud S.R.L.

B-415009 Oct 27, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Franzosini Sud S.R.L., of Naples, Italy, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. S-IT700-17-R-0001, issued by the Department of State for shipping and packing services for United States diplomatic and consular posts in Italy. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Franzosini Sud S.R.L. File:  B-415009 Date:  October 27, 2017 Dr. Luca Bosco, Franzosini Sud S.R.L., for the protester. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated the proposal consistent with the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations; remaining allegations concerning the evaluation of protester’s proposal need not be addressed because the record shows that the protester was not prejudiced by an errors in this regard. DECISION Franzosini Sud S.R.L., of Naples, Italy, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. S-IT700-17-R-0001, issued by the Department of State for shipping and packing services for United States diplomatic and consular posts in Italy.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 16, 2016, contemplated the award of multiple fixed-price indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery contracts for a 1-year base-period and 4 one-year option periods for shipping and intra-city moving services for the United States Tri-Mission in Rome, Italy, and the United States Consulates General in Milan, Florence, and Naples, Italy.  RFP at 1-2.  Awards were to be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) offerors.  RFP § M.1. The RFP advised offerors that the agency would evaluate technical acceptability by reviewing the offeror’s past performance and experience, as defined by Section L of the RFP, as well as by reviewing any additional technical information provided by the offeror with its proposal.  Id.  Section L delineated the required contents of offeror’s proposals, including the information the agency would evaluate to determine the offeror’s ability to perform the services contemplated by the performance work statement (PWS).  RFP § L.1.2.2.   Relevant here, offerors were required to demonstrate that they could provide the necessary personnel, defined as the size and composition of the firm’s key personnel and work force presently on payroll, to perform the services described in the PWS.  RFP § L.1.2.2(4).  Additionally, offerors were required to demonstrate that they had sufficient equipment, defined as the composition of their vehicle fleet and moving equipment, as well as to provide information regarding the size and location of their warehouses and offices.  Id.  As for past performance, the RFP advised that the agency intended to use past performance primarily to assess an offeror’s capability to meet the solicitation’s performance requirements.  RFP § L.1.2.2(3). The offerors were to include in their proposals a list of their clients from the past three years which demonstrate relevant past performance.  Id. The agency received twelve proposals in response to the RFP.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Pre-Negotiation Memorandum, at 2.  In evaluating Franzosini’s proposal, the agency noted that the firm, presently operating out of Naples, stated that if it were awarded the contract, it would establish a partnership with another firm, Luciano Franzosini (Luciano), to perform the contract requirements located in Rome.[1]  AR, Tab 7, Franzosini Proposal, at 4.  Luciano independently submitted a proposal which was determined to be technically unacceptable based on inadequate staffing, equipment, and warehouse facilities, as well as a record of poor past performance on a preexisting contract with the agency.  AR, Tab 9, Technical Evaluation at 4-6.  As the agency also found that Franzosini had inadequate staffing, equipment, and warehouse facilities, in part due to its reliance on Luciano to fulfill the Rome portions of the contract, Franzosini’s proposal was also found to be technically unacceptable.  Id. at 1-3. The agency notified Franzosini of its exclusion from the competitive range and offered a debriefing.  AR, Tab 11, Letter from Agency to Protester, Apr. 21, 2017.  In response, Franzosini requested a post-award debriefing.  AR, Tab 12, Email from Protester to Agency, Apr.