Avalon Contracting, Inc

B-417845,B-417845.2 Nov 19, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Avalon Contracting, Inc., a small business of Tacoma, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Facility Services Management, Inc. (FSI), of Clarksville, Tennessee, by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0034-19-R-0008, for operations and maintenance services for the Pentagon Memorial dedicated to the victims of the September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation and award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Avalon Contracting, Inc. File:  B-417845; B-417845.2 Date:  November 19, 2019 Kevin Ingley, for the protester. Bonnie Kirkland, Esq., and John Dulske, Esq., Dykema Gossett PLLC, for Facility Services Management, Inc., the intervenor. Andrew Bramnick, Esq., Michael G. Anderson, Esq., and Elizabeth Urrutia, Esq., Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, for the agency. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where the evaluation conclusions were reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and did not employ unstated evaluation criteria.  2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the past performance evaluation factor is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable.  DECISION Avalon Contracting, Inc., a small business of Tacoma, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Facility Services Management, Inc. (FSI), of Clarksville, Tennessee, by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0034-19-R-0008, for operations and maintenance services for the Pentagon Memorial dedicated to the victims of the September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation and award decision.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND On May 8, 2019, the Washington Headquarters Services issued the RFP pursuant to the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 12.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, at 1, 92.  The RFP sought proposals to provide operations and maintenance services, including repairs when needed, of the Pentagon Memorial.  Id. at 18.  The Pentagon Memorial is an outdoor venue dedicated to the victims of the September 11 attack on the Pentagon and includes 184 memorial units dedicated to the victims of the attack.  Id.   The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, for a base year and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 20, 92.  The RFP provided that award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best overall value to the government, price and other factors considered.  Id. at 92.  Proposals were to be evaluated based on the following three factors:  technical approach and capability, past performance, and price.  Id. at 100.  For purposes of award, the technical approach and capability and past performance factors were equal in weight, and when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.  The RFP specified that price would become more significant in the award decision as the evaluation under the technical approach and capability and past performance factors became more equal.  Id.  The agency would first evaluate proposals under the following three “pass/fail” criteria:  meeting key personnel qualifications; accepting all RFP terms and conditions; and submitting all required RFP information by the closing date.  Id. at 101.  The agency would not further evaluate proposals that failed any of these criteria.  Id.    Under the technical approach and capability factor, the RFP stated that agency would evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed technical approach for “completeness and understanding” of the requirements specified in the solicitation, including the PWS.  Id. at 101-102.  The RFP advised offerors that “[c]larity, completeness and conciseness are essential.”  Id. at 102.  In evaluating proposals under technical approach and capability, the agency would assign a combined technical/risk rating that would reflect the degree the proposed approach meets the threshold performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the relative strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses and significant weaknesses, and risks to successful performance.  Id. at 103.  Under the past performance factor, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate how well the offeror has performed on contracts that have been determined to be recent and relevant to the PWS.  Id. at 102.  Each proposal would be assigned a confidence assessment rating based on the offeror’s overall record of quality on recent and relevant past performance.  Id.