Olgoonik Logistics, LLC

B-415569 Jan 23, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Olgoonik Logistics, LLC (OL), of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to LB&B Associates, Inc., of Columbia, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE600-17-R-0522, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for fuel management services for Naval Base Coronado, California. OL challenges the agency's conduct of discussions and the reasonableness of the evaluation of OL's technical proposal. 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:  Olgoonik Logistics, LLC File:  B-415569 Date:  January 23, 2018 William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the protester. Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., Jennifer M. Miller, Esq., and Dana L. Messinger, Esq., Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, for LB&B Associates, Inc., the intervenor. Don F. Pollack, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency's conduct of discussions is denied where the record provides no basis on which to conclude that discussions were not meaningful or were otherwise improper. 2.  Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's technical proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Olgoonik Logistics, LLC (OL), of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to LB&B Associates, Inc., of Columbia, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE600-17-R-0522, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for fuel management services for Naval Base Coronado, California.  OL challenges the agency's conduct of discussions and the reasonableness of the evaluation of OL's technical proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 (Commercial Item Acquisition) procedures and employing the best-value source selection process of FAR part 15, sought proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract, with a term of 4 years with one 5-year option period, to the firm whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering four evaluation factors:  technical/management, past performance, socioeconomic/subcontracting, and price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 4, 18, 128.  The technical/management factor was more important than the past performance and socioeconomic/subcontracting factors, which were equally important.  Id. at 129.  When combined, the non-price factors were significantly more important than price.  Id. The technical/management factor contained four equally important subfactors:  operations, personnel/training, maintenance, and safety/environment.  Id. at 129-30.  Each subfactor would be evaluated as outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable; the subfactor ratings would be combined for an overall technical/management rating.  Id. at 129.  Any proposal that received a final evaluation rating of marginal or unacceptable in any factor or subfactor would be ineligible for award.  Id. at 131.  A proposal was considered unacceptable and thus unawardable if the proposal did not meet the requirements of the solicitation, that is, it contained one or more deficiencies, and/or the risk of unsuccessful contract performance was unacceptable.  Id. at 129; see also AR, Tab 1, Source Selection Plan, at 7; RFP at 120 (noting that a proposal would be considered unacceptable for award if it contained deficiencies that preclude award of the contract on the present terms of the proposal). For the personnel/training subfactor, the offeror was to identify personnel to perform the operations, maintenance, fuel quality surveillance, inventory, accounting, and other listed functions in the performance work statement (PWS).  RFP at 130.  For example, Appendix A to the PWS specified operating hours for the requirement's two locations, Coronado and San Clemente Island.  See AR, Tab 14, Amend. 0007, PWS Append. A.  The naval base at Coronado included the Naval Air Station North Island, the Naval Amphibious Base, and the Naval Outlying Landing Field, Imperial Beach.  Id.  With respect to the Naval Air Station North Island, the Naval Amphibious Base, and the Naval Outlying Landing Field, Imperial Beach, the contractor is required to staff two hot pit refueling operations.[1]  Id.