HESCO Bastion Ltd.

B-415526.3 Apr 03, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HESCO Bastion Ltd., of Leeds, United Kingdom, requests that we recommend it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the issuance of a purchase order to JSF Systems, LLC (JSF), of Washington, DC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QVN-17-R-0204, issued by the Department of the Army for earth-filled barriers. 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:  HESCO Bastion Ltd.--Costs File:  B-415526.3 Date:  April 3, 2018 Douglas C. Proxmire, Esq., Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., and Chelsea B. Knudson, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Major Allen D. Stewart, Department of the Army, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s request that GAO recommend reimbursement of protest costs is granted where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious protest. DECISION HESCO Bastion Ltd., of Leeds, United Kingdom, requests that we recommend it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the issuance of a purchase order to JSF Systems, LLC (JSF), of Washington, DC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QVN-17-R-0204, issued by the Department of the Army for earth-filled barriers.  We grant the request. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, sought the issuance of a purchase order for HESCO brand name or equal earth-filled barriers to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest-priced proposal that satisfied all of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, considering the following evaluation factors:  technical capability, price, and past performance.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, at 5, 7-8.  The technical capability factor contained five subfactors:  training, prior experience, evidence of laboratory environmental and performance testing, documentation of testing, and an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification for quality management systems (ISO 9001:2008).  Id.  All of the technical subfactors and past performance were evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable.[1]  Id. With respect to the prior experience subfactor, the RFP required offerors to demonstrate at least 2 years of experience, within the last 5 years, manufacturing earth-filled barriers for the government.  Id. at 6.  Offerors were required to include the following documentation of experience in their proposals:  the title of the government project or contract, a brief description of the work completed, the client’s name, the period of contract performance, and the value of the contract.  Id. The RFP advised offerors that past performance would be evaluated in accordance with FAR provision 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors--Commercial Items, which provides that, where a solicitation contains past performance as an evaluation criterion, offers “must show” past performance information that “include[s] recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items,” as well as relevant information about the contract references.  See RFP at 9.  Offerors were required to provide the following documentation to demonstrate past performance manufacturing earth-filled barriers that have been delivered within the past 5 years:  company name, contract number, total dollar value, contract award date, title of contract, description of project, and period of performance.  Id. at 7.  The RFP required delivery of two types of HESCO brand name or equal earth-filled barriers--CART and RAID, as marketed by HESCO.[2]  Id. at 5.  For firms offering “or equal” products, the solicitation identified many salient characteristics, three of which are relevant to this protest.  See id. at 5-6.  Both products were required to be deployed in a maximum of 60 seconds.  Id. at 5.  The RAID or equal product was required to contain “[b]uilt rails inside for easy deployment.”  Id. The agency received two proposals by the solicitation closing date of September 23, 2017.  AR, Tab 11, Award Determination Summary, at 1.  HESCO’s proposal was evaluated as technically acceptable.  Id.