JMark Services, Inc.

B-417331.2 Jul 22, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JMark Services, Inc., an 8(a) small business concern located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to SierTek, Ltd., an 8(a) small business concern located in Beavercreek, Ohio, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA3030-18-R-0016, issued by the Department of the Air Force for intelligence instructor services at Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas. The protester alleges that an agency official improperly influenced the award of the contract and that the award was tainted by bias and bad faith. The protester also alleges that the agency's evaluation of quotations under all evaluation factors and its best-value tradeoff decision were unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. We dismiss the protest in part, deny in part and sustain it in part. 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: JMark Services, Inc. File: B-417331.2 Date: July 22, 2019 Charles R. Lucy, Holland & Hart LLP, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Heather M. Mandelkehr, Esq., Department of the Air Force; and Sam Q. Le, Esq., and Mark Hagedorn, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that the evaluation was tainted by bias on the part of an agency official is denied where the agency official was not involved in the evaluation, and where the protester has failed to provide any convincing proof to demonstrate that agency evaluators acted in bad faith or were biased. 2. Protest challenging the agency's technical evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and performed in accordance with the solicitation's pass/fail evaluation methodology. 3. Protest challenging the agency's failure to assess the risk associated with the awardee's low price is dismissed as factually and legally insufficient where the protester has failed to show that the solicitation required a price realism analysis. 4. Protester challenging the agency's past performance evaluation is sustained where the agency failed to consider the relevancy of vendors' prior efforts. DECISION JMark Services, Inc., an 8(a) small business concern located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to SierTek, Ltd., an 8(a) small business concern located in Beavercreek, Ohio, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA3030-18-R-0016, issued by the Department of the Air Force for intelligence instructor services at Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas. The protester alleges that an agency official improperly influenced the award of the contract and that the award was tainted by bias and bad faith. The protester also alleges that the agency's evaluation of quotations under all evaluation factors and its best-value tradeoff decision were unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. We dismiss the protest in part, deny in part and sustain it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on January 4, 2019, as a set-aside for participants in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program. RFQ at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. The RFQ was posted as a combined synopsis/ solicitation using the simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subparts 12.6 and 13.5. RFQ at 1. The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a period of performance of a base year followed by four option years for course instruction services at Goodfellow Air Force Base.1 Id. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three factors: (1) technical, (2) past performance, and (3) price. Id. at 2. More specifically, the solicitation provided that the Air Force would evaluate quotations on a pass/fail basis under the technical factor. RFQ at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, Responses to Vendors' Questions, at 1; COS at 3. A tradeoff analysis would be conducted between the past performance and price factors. RFQ at 2. The RFQ did not disclose the relative weight assigned to these two evaluation factors, but indicated that the agency reserved the right to award the contract to a higher-priced vendor if that vendor's "better past performance history" merited the price premium associated with the quotation.2 Id. In order to be deemed technically acceptable, vendors were required to: (1) provide proof of a top-secret facility clearance and (2) indicate in their quotations that they would fully comply with and perform all functions and duties as outlined in the performance work statement (PWS). Id. at 2.