Louis Berger Power, LLC

B-416059 May 24, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Louis Berger Power, LLC (LBP), of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the issuance of a task order under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to Inglett & Stubbs International, Ltd. (ISI), of Atlanta, Georgia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912BU-18-R-0012, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the operation and maintenance of a 56 megawatt (MW) power plant and associated distribution at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. LBP challenges the agency's waiver of a mandatory site visit for ISI, the evaluation of ISI's price and technical quotations, and the adequacy of discussions. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Louis Berger Power, LLC File:  B-416059 Date:  May 24, 2018 David M. Nadler, Esq., Scott Arnold, Esq., Michael Montalbano, Esq., Ioana Cristei, Esq., and Adam Proujansky, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. Dana B. Pashkoff, Esq., Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., and Amanda M. Pasquini, Esq., Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, for Inglett & Stubbs International, Ltd., the intervenor. Maureen A. McAndrew, Esq., Madeline Shay, Esq., John A. Skarbek, Esq., and Thomas J. Warren, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the awardee made material misrepresentations in connection with requesting a waiver of a mandatory site visit and that the agency’s waiver was otherwise unreasonable is denied where the record does not establish any material misrepresentation and the protester otherwise cannot establish any competitive prejudice. 2.  Protest alleging that the agency should have excluded the awardee’s quotation based on its unreasonably low price is denied where the solicitation did not contemplate a price realism evaluation. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical quotation as technically acceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Louis Berger Power, LLC (LBP), of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the issuance of a task order under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to Inglett & Stubbs International, Ltd. (ISI), of Atlanta, Georgia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912BU-18-R-0012, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the operation and maintenance of a 56 megawatt (MW) power plant and associated distribution at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.[1]  LBP challenges the agency’s waiver of a mandatory site visit for ISI, the evaluation of ISI’s price and technical quotations, and the adequacy of discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Corps issued the RFQ on December 15, 2017, to holders of General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Facilities Maintenance and Management Schedule 03FAC contracts for the operation and maintenance of a government-owned 56 MW power plant and associated power distribution at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.  RFQ at 421; id., Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 471.[2]  The period of performance included:  a 45-day phase-in period; a 320-day base period of performance for operations and maintenance and logistical support; an option to extend services pursuant to FAR clause 52.217-8 for up to six months; an option to rebuild a turbine engine generator; and a phasing-out option after the completion of performance.  RFQ at 429‑35.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price order.  RFQ, Instructions to Offerors (ITO), at 504. The RFQ provided for selecting the vendor for the task order on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis.  The non-price factors for evaluation were technical and past performance.  Id.