Red River Science & Technology, LLC

B-417798.2 Oct 24, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Red River Science & Technology, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned HUBZone disadvantaged small business of Lawton, Oklahoma, protests the issuance of an order to Bowhead Operations & Maintenance Solutions, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-19-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command for logistics support services at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Red River challenges the Army's evaluation of its past performance as only acceptable, arguing that the agency failed to reasonably consider the past performance of its proposed subcontractor as required by the terms of the solicitation. 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:  Red River Science & Technology, LLC File:  B-417798.2 Date:  October 24, 2019 Jackson W. Moore, Esq., Amelia L. Serrat, Esq., David L. Hayden, Esq., Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, for the protester. Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Gordon Griffin, Esq., Vijaya S. Surampudi, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for Bowhead Operations and Maintenance Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Matthew R. Wilson, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably downgraded the protester’s past performance where the protester lacked relevant past performance in a primary performance area required by the solicitation and the protester’s subcontractor, which had the relevant past performance, was not proposed to perform that area of the work.  DECISION Red River Science & Technology, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned HUBZone disadvantaged small business of Lawton, Oklahoma, protests the issuance of an order to Bowhead Operations & Maintenance Solutions, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-19-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command for logistics support services at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Red River challenges the Army’s evaluation of its past performance as only acceptable, arguing that the agency failed to reasonably consider the past performance of its proposed subcontractor as required by the terms of the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation as a set-aside for small disadvantaged businesses holding Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) Basic Ordering Agreements (BOA).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP, at 2.  The solicitation sought proposals for the provision of maintenance, supply, and transportation logistics support services at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Id.  The Army anticipated issuing a requirements-type order with both fixed-price and cost-reimbursable elements for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 2-3. The solicitation established that the Army would make award based on three factors:  (1) technical acceptability; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price.  RFP at 2; AR, Tab 7, RFP amend. 4, at 19.  According to the award scheme set forth in the solicitation, the Army would first evaluate proposals for technical acceptability on a pass/fail basis.  AR, Tab 7, RFP amend. 4, at 19-20.  Next, the Army would evaluate the three lowest-priced offerors under the past performance factor.  Under this factor, the Army would perform a qualitative assessment of the past performance of recent and relevant contracts performed by the offeror, and by any subcontractors proposed to perform 20 percent or more of the total proposed cost/price.  Based on this assessment, the Army would assign the three lowest-priced offerors a past performance confidence rating, the highest of which was “substantial confidence.”  The agency would continue to evaluate the technically acceptable offerors to determine whether any had a past performance rating of substantial confidence because the solicitation dictated that award would be made to the lowest-priced firm with a past performance rating of substantial confidence.  RFP at 2; AR, Tab 7, RFP amend. 4, at 18.  If none of the technically acceptable offerors received a substantial confidence past performance rating, the Army would consider all factors and conduct a best-value tradeoff.  AR, Tab 7, RFP amend. 4, at 20.[1] For the purpose of assessing past performance, the solicitation required offerors to provide examples of recent and relevant past contract efforts.  AR, Tab 7, RFP amend.