Pond Constructors, Inc. (W912DY-19-R-0040)

B-418403 Mar 23, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pond Constructors, Inc., of Peachtree Corners, Georgia, protests the issuance of a task order to Louis Berger Hawthorne Services, Inc. (LBHS), of Greenville, South Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912DY-19-R-0040 issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for maintenance and repair services of overseas petroleum facilities. Pond challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation and the 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:  Pond Constructors, Inc. File:  B-418403 Date:  March 23, 2020 David A. Rose, Esq., Law Offices of Rose Consulting, LLC, for the protester. Scott Arnold, Esq., Justin A. Chiarodo, Esq., Adam Proujansky, Esq., Michael Montalbano, Esq., Tjasse L.  Fritz, Esq., and David M. Nadler, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for Louis Berger Hawthorne Services, Inc., the intervenor. Jennifer Bowmar, Esq., and Michael Graves, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation and best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record shows the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Pond Constructors, Inc., of Peachtree Corners, Georgia, protests the issuance of a task order to Louis Berger Hawthorne Services, Inc. (LBHS), of Greenville, South Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912DY-19-R-0040 issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for maintenance and repair services of overseas petroleum facilities.  Pond challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on August 23, 2019 using the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, sought quotations from vendors holding General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 03FAC (facilities maintenance and management) contracts to obtain recurring maintenance and minor repair services for petroleum facilities on government installations in the South Pacific.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ, at 2.  The resulting task order was to be issued on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach and experience (technical approach), past performance, price, and small business participation.  Id. at 2, 14. Four quotations were received by the agency in response to the solicitation, including those from Pond and LBHS.  AR, Tab 5, Contracting Officer Decision Document (CODD), at 1-2.  After an evaluation of quotations, the relevant results were as follows:[1]   LBHS Pond Technical Approach Good Acceptable Past Performance Satisfactory Confidence Substantial Confidence[2] Small Business Participation Outstanding Acceptable Price $32,984,468 $33,108,686   Id. at 12. The contracting officer, who was also the SSA for this procurement, conducted a tradeoff analysis between the various quotations, and concluded that LBHS’s quotation represented the overall best value to the government.  Id. at 14-15.  The SSA found that while Pond received the highest rating under the past performance factor, this did not outweigh LBHS’s higher ratings under the technical approach and small business participation factors.  Id. at 14.  Pond was notified of the agency’s award decision by correspondence dated December 23, 2019, and provided a brief explanation of the basis for award on December 30.  Protest, exhs. 2 and 3.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION Pond challenges the Corps’ evaluation of its quotation under the technical approach factor and the small business participation factor, as well the resulting tradeoff decision.  We have considered all of the protester’s allegations and find that they afford no basis on which to sustain the protest.   Small Business Participation Factor As a preliminary matter, we dismiss Pond’s challenge to the evaluation of its quotation under the small business participation factor.  The protester argues that its quotation should have received a higher rating because its proposed small business participation rate “far exceed[s]” the goals set forth in the solicitation.