Regency Enterprises Services (SPE602-20-R-0702)

B-418448,B-418448.2 May 06, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Regency Enterprises Services, LLC, a small business of St. Louis, Missouri, challenges its exclusion from the competitive range under Solicitation No. SPE602-20-R-0702, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for fuel transportation services to various locations in Kuwait. The protester alleges that the agency erred in finding its proposal technically unacceptable, should have referred the company to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a certificate of competency (COC) rather than excluding it from the competition, and erred in establishing a competitive range based on price. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Regency Enterprises Services, LLC File:  B-418448; B-418448.2 Date:  May 6, 2020 James Wallis, Regency Enterprises Services, LLC, for the protester. Eric Freeman, Esq., and Christopher S. Colby, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a lowest-price, technically acceptable procurement, exclusion of protester’s proposal from competitive range was not improper where the agency reasonably concluded that the proposal had no realistic prospect of award. DECISION   Regency Enterprises Services, LLC, a small business of St. Louis, Missouri, challenges its exclusion from the competitive range under Solicitation No. SPE602-20-R-0702, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for fuel transportation services to various locations in Kuwait.  The protester alleges that the agency erred in finding its proposal technically unacceptable, should have referred the company to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a certificate of competency (COC) rather than excluding it from the competition, and erred in establishing a competitive range based on price. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 19, 2019, the agency issued the request for proposals (RFP) for tank truck transportation services in Kuwait.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1-2.  The RFP contemplated award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 66.  The technical evaluation factor was divided into three subfactors:  (1) general provisions and performance requirements; (2) quality assurance and quantity requirements; and (3) deliverables.  Id.  The RFP also provided that offerors must receive acceptable ratings for each subfactor to be technically acceptable overall.  Id.  Relevant to this protest, the RFP required offerors to include various licenses and permits in their proposals, such as a permit to transport fuel in Kuwait.  Id. at 64.  Finally, the RFP noted that “[f]ailure to provide the information requested in any of the evaluation factors may be considered a ‘No response’ and a rating of UNACCEPTABLE will be given to the applicable factor or sub-factor.”  Id. at 63. The government received several timely offers, including one from Regency.[1]  MOL at 5-6.  The agency evaluated the offers, and concluded that all the offers it received were technically unacceptable.  Id.  However, the evaluators also noted that there was a substantial break in offer prices.  Id.  That is to say, one group of lower-priced offers were similar to the internal government cost estimate (IGCE), while a group of higher-priced offers were more than double the IGCE and significantly exceeded the average market price.  Id.  Because the RFP contemplated award on an LPTA basis, the contracting officer established a competitive range including only the lower-priced offerors.  MOL at 6.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION The protester challenges its exclusion from the competitive range on several bases.  First, the protester contends that the agency erred in finding its proposal technically unacceptable.  Comments at 6-10.  Second, the protester argues that, even if its proposal was technically unacceptable, the agency’s evaluation constituted a de facto responsibility determination, and the agency should have referred the protester to the SBA for a COC.  Comments at 11-14.  Finally, the protester argues that the agency’s decision to establish a competitive range on the basis of price was flawed and inadequately documented.  Comments at 2-6, 14-17.  We address these arguments in turn.[2] Technical Evaluation and COC In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals, nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency; we will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  Team Systems International, B-411139, May 22, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 163 at 5.