The HP Group, LLC

B-415285 Dec 14, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The HP Group, LLC (HPG), an 8(a)-certified, service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Dunn, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Melgar Janitorial Solutions (Melgar), of San Jose, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-17-R-1158, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for custodial services at the Naval Weapons Station Earle (NWSE), in Colts Neck, New Jersey. HPG challenges the evaluation of its price 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:  The HP Group, LLC File:  B-415285 Date:  December 14, 2017 Megan C. Connor, Esq., Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., and Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Kathryn M. Kelley, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Steven J. Koprince, Esq., Candace M. Shields, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., and Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Koprince Law LLC, for Melgar Janitorial Solutions, the intervenor. Lucie J. McDonald, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Gabriel D. Soll, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that an agency misevaluated offerors’ price proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest alleging an ambiguity in a solicitation is denied where the protester does not demonstrate that its interpretation of the provision is reasonable. DECISION The HP Group, LLC (HPG), an 8(a)-certified, service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Dunn, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Melgar Janitorial Solutions (Melgar), of San Jose, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-17-R-1158, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for custodial services at the Naval Weapons Station Earle (NWSE), in Colts Neck, New Jersey.  HPG challenges the evaluation of its price proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on June 30, 2017, as a set-aside procurement under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for custodial services.  Id.  The RFP sought proposals to provide all labor, management, supervision, tools, materials and equipment necessary to perform the custodial services sought.  These services included, but were not limited to, emptying waste and recycling containers, carpet vacuuming, window cleaning, restroom and shower cleaning, and special floor care for gymnasia and racquetball courts.  Id.  The solicitation anticipated a base year and four 1-year option periods of performance.  RFP at 8.  The solicitation described various levels of service the Navy could order, denoting the frequency of activities within each level of service in an attachment.  See RFP at 42-43; 139-140 (Attachment J-1503010-03).  Offerors were to submit price proposals by completing a summary bid schedule and pricing schedules for the base year and each option year.  Id. at 11.  The pricing schedules listed the various service levels and provided a space in which the offeror was to insert a unit price for each line item.  Id. at 130; Agency Report (AR), Tab C, Attachment J-0200000-09.  These unit prices were then to be multiplied by a quantity, pre-populated on the pricing schedules by the agency, to produce an extended price for each line item.  These extended prices were then to be added together to produce a total price for each possible year of performance.  Id. at 11.  Many of the line items on the schedule were listed with a quantity pre-populated as zero.  Id. at 43.[1]  The RFP provided that if “there is a difference between a unit price and an extended total amount,” the agency would consider the unit price to be the intended offer and would use it to recalculate the extended price.  Id.