Defense Base Services, Inc.

B-416874.3,B-416874.4 Aug 19, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Defense Base Services, Inc. (DBSI), of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Communications, Ltd. (ASRCC), of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5215-17-R-9002 issued by the Department of the Air Force for installation support services. DBSI challenges the agency's evaluation of Arctic Slope's proposal under the price factor, as well as the agency's best-value tradeoff decision. 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:  Defense Base Services, Inc. File:  B-416874.3; B-416874.4 Date:  August 19, 2019 Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Sarah Osborne, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Lauren J. Horneffer, Esq., and Caitlin A. Crujido, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Communications, Ltd., the intervenor. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Jason R. Smith, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency unreasonably failed to determine that the awardee’s price proposal was unbalanced is denied where the record shows that the agency’s price evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest that the agency inflated the importance of the past performance factor, while minimizing the importance of the price factor, in its best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s tradeoff decision was reasonable, and the weight assigned by the source selection authority to each factor was consistent with the stated evaluation scheme. DECISION Defense Base Services, Inc. (DBSI), of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Communications, Ltd. (ASRCC), of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5215-17-R-9002 issued by the Department of the Air Force for installation support services.  DBSI challenges the agency’s evaluation of Arctic Slope’s proposal under the price factor, as well as the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 1, 2017, sought proposals to provide operations and maintenance services for Eareckson Air Station, located on the Aleutian Island of Shemya; King Salmon Airport, located within the Bristol Bay Borough of Alaska; and Wake Island Airfield, located on Wake Island.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 18, RFP, Section J, Attachment 1, at 4-5.  Under the contract, referenced as the Installation Support Services 2 – Geographically Separated Locations (ISS2-GSL) contract, the awardee was to provide various services including, but not limited to, operation and maintenance of:  facilities, utilities, airfield, vehicles, equipment, appliances, roads, grounds, communication systems, equipment, computers, networks, billeting, food, medical, environmental services, quality control, supply, logistics, fire protection, aircraft refueling, deicing, and cargo and passenger handling.  Id. at 5.  The resulting contract was to include a 1-year, fixed-price phase-in period; ten fixed-price option years, each with various fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLIN); and an optional 1‑year phase-out period.  RFP at 2-91. Proposals were to be evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price, technical acceptability, technical risk, and past performance.  RFP, Section J, Attachment 17, at 1.  When combined, the non-price factors were to be approximately equal to price.  Id.  The RFP instructed that, “[a]ll technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their technical risk, prices and performance records.”  Id. Technical acceptability was to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis considering four subfactors:  management, transition, technical approach and retention.  Id. at 1-2.  Technical risk was to consider potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.  Id. at 2.  Proposals were to be assigned one of the following risk ratings:  low risk, moderate risk, high risk or unacceptable risk.  Id. at 3.  Under the past performance factor, recent and relevant performance information was to be evaluated to “assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance.”  Id.