JJ Global Services (N40192-19-R-9200)

B-418318 Feb 07, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JJ Global Services, Inc. (JJG), of Tamuning, Guam, protests the award of a contract to Pacific Federal Management, Inc., of Tumon, Guam, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40192-19-R-9200, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for grounds maintenance and tree trimming services at various military installations on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable because the agency did not review pages containing requisite information that exceeded the solicitation’s page limitations. The protester also argues that the agency failed to waive the informational omissions in the proposal, or allow the protester to correct them. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  JJ Global Services, Inc. File:  B-418318 Date:  February 7, 2020 Luis Bustamante, JJ Global Services, Inc., for the protester.  Ryan M. Johnson, Esq., Blair Sterling Johnson & Martinez, P.C., and Brian A. Darst, Esq., Odin, Feldman, and Pittleman, for Pacific Federal Management, Inc., the intervenor.  Laura Whitten, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.  Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that certain required information in proposal was in pages that exceeded the solicitation’s page limits, and the agency’s decision not to consider that information was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms. DECISION JJ Global Services, Inc. (JJG), of Tamuning, Guam, protests the award of a contract to Pacific Federal Management, Inc., of Tumon, Guam, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40192-19-R-9200, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for grounds maintenance and tree trimming services at various military installations on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.  The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable because the agency did not review pages containing requisite information that exceeded the solicitation’s page limitations.  The protester also argues that the agency failed to waive the informational omissions in the proposal, or allow the protester to correct them. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 19, 2019, as a set-aside for historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) concerns, contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to perform these ground maintenance services.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 2-8.  Award was to be made without conducting discussions to the firm whose proposal conformed to the solicitation and represented the best value to the agency.  Id. at 55.  The solicitation required the evaluation of price and five non-price factors, including technical approach, and management plan and quality control.  Id. at 54.  The non-price factors were to be assigned ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id. at 57.  An unacceptable rating would be assigned where the proposal did not meet the requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contained one or more deficiencies.  Id..  Any proposal found to have a deficiency would be considered ineligible for award.  Id. at 54.  The RFP set forth various page limitations for the proposals.  As relevant here, the solicitation limited, to a maximum of five pages each, the narratives provided to respond to the solicitation’s requirements related to technical approach, and management plan and quality control.  Id. at 48, 50.  The solicitation cautioned that “[i]f the offeror submits more than five (5) pages for evaluation [for either narrative], the Government will evaluate the first five (5) pages and will not evaluate information that follows the first five (5) pages.”  Id.  The solicitation stated that “unnecessarily elaborate” presentation beyond that sufficient to “present a complete and effective response to the solicitation [is] not desired.”  Id.