Auxilio FPM JV, LLC

B-415215.4 Apr 27, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Auxilio FPM JV, LLC, an 8(a) small business located in Denver, Colorado, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest against the award of four indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-15-R-0035, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) for environmental investigation and remediation services at military munitions response program sites. We grant the request. We grant the request. 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:  Auxilio FPM JV, LLC--Costs File:  B-415215.4 Date:  April 27, 2018 Phillip R. Seckman, Esq., Thomas F. Rath, Esq., and J. Quincy Stott, Esq., Dentons US LLP, for the protester. Connie L. Baran, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST GAO recommends reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing challenges against the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals, past performance, and the source selection decision, where the evaluation challenges were clearly meritorious, or intertwined with clearly meritorious issues. DECISION Auxilio FPM JV, LLC, an 8(a) small business located in Denver, Colorado, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest against the award of four indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-15-R-0035, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) for environmental investigation and remediation services at military munitions response program sites.  We grant the request. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2017, Auxilio filed a protest with our Office challenging the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals, past performance, and the agency’s source selection.  Specifically, Auxilio argued that the agency failed to credit its proposal with two strengths and improperly combined two other strengths into a single strength.  Auxilio also alleged that the agency’s past performance evaluation failed to consider past performance questionnaires (PPQs) and contractor performance assessment report (CPAR) information, applied an unstated evaluation criterion by assessing separate complexity ratings, and improperly reduced its confidence rating based on one CPAR rating.  The protester also alleged that the agency’s best-value decision was unreasonable because it was based upon a flawed evaluation.  On November 20, Auxilio filed supplemental protests expanding its challenges to the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals, past performance, and the source selection decision.  After development of the protest record, the cognizant Government Accountability Office (GAO) attorney conducted an “outcome prediction” alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference.  In the course of that ADR, the GAO attorney advised the parties that GAO would likely sustain Auxilio’s protest on the following bases:  (1) the source selection decision was improperly based upon a mechanical comparison of the offerors’ adjectival ratings; (2) the source selection authority’s (SSA’s) decision to increase the technical ratings for three offerors, including one awardee, was unreasonable; and (3) the agency’s past performance evaluation failed to follow the RFP evaluation criteria.  Specifically, the GAO attorney explained that the best-value decision failed to include a comparative analysis of the offerors’ proposals and was not adequately documented.  With respect to the SSA’s change in technical rating, the GAO attorney explained that the SSA’s documented rationale for increasing three offerors’ ratings was not a reasonable basis to disregard the ratings of the technical evaluators.  In this regard, the record demonstrated that even though the SSA agreed with the evaluator’s rationale for the ratings, the SSA concluded that “in fairness to the offeror[s]” he would not accept the evaluator’s ratings because the offerors were not told that their strengths would be revised downward.  Agency Report, Tab 6, Source Selection Decision, at 4.  With respect to the past performance evaluation, the GAO attorney explained that the evaluation was flawed because the evaluators improperly elevated the consideration of complexity contrary to the stated evaluation criteria.  The GAO attorney also explained that the agency had separately analyzed complexity contrary to the RFP criteria, which provided for an evaluation of complexity as part of the relevancy determination and not a separate analysis.