Global Asset Technologies, LLC

B-416576.8,B-416576.9 Nov 22, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Global Asset Technologies, LLC (Global), a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Dawson Enterprises, LLC (Dawson), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912BU-18-R-0017, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) for facilities engineering and assessment services in support of the U.S. Army Reserve’s 99th Division. Global contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and made a flawed best-value determination. 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:  Global Asset Technologies, LLC File:  B-416576.8; B-416576.9 Date:  November 22, 2019 William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the protester. Kristin Zachman, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, P.C., for Dawson Enterprises, LLC, the intervenor. Maureen A. McAndrew, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest arguing that agency’s evaluation of proposals following corrective action was flawed because the agency failed to consider its prior evaluation provides no basis for sustaining the protest. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s best-value determination is denied when the agency reasonably concluded that the protester’s proposal was essentially equal to the awardee’s proposal under the non-price evaluation factors, and therefore reasonably made award to the lower-priced offeror. DECISION Global Asset Technologies, LLC (Global), a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Dawson Enterprises, LLC (Dawson), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912BU-18-R-0017, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) for facilities engineering and assessment services in support of the U.S. Army Reserve’s 99th Division.  Global contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and made a flawed best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on February 22, 2018, as an 8(a) set-aside, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation parts 12 and 15, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with cost-reimbursable line items for travel, for a 30-day  phase-in, an 11-month base period, and four 1-year option periods, for facilities engineering and assessment services in support of the U.S. Army Reserve’s 99th Division.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 1, 54, 60.  Specifically, the statement of work required the provision of personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to perform real property ownership and base operations and support services across  13 states and the District of Columbia.  Id. at 60.  The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, utilizing the following factors:  (1) professional and technical approach; (2) past performance; and (3) price.  Id. at 28.  The professional and technical approach factor was composed of three subfactors, listed in decreasing order of importance:  capability to perform; management approach; and staffing and laydown plan.  Id.  The RFP advised that professional and technical approach was more important than past performance, but, when combined, these two factors were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 25.  An offeror’s professional and technical approach would be evaluated for strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks, and uncertainties, and then assigned a color/adjectival rating based on the proposal’s technical/risk rating.[1]  Id.  at 81-82.  Under the past performance evaluation factor, the agency would evaluate an offeror’s record of past and current performance to determine the probability of successfully performing the required efforts.  Id. at 82.  The solicitation provided that offerors would be assigned a confidence assessment rating based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.[2]  Id. at 82-83. As relevant to this protest, under the staffing and laydown plan subfactor, offerors were required to describe their plans to attract, recruit, hire, retain, and replace personnel for the duration of the contract, to overcome the barriers and risks associated with the replacement of personnel, and their plans to evaluate key personnel to ensure they have the necessary skills to successfully complete the requirements of the project.  Id.