BryMak & Associates, Inc. (N40085-19-R-9134)

B-418491.2 Jun 16, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BryMak & Associates, Inc., of Clarksville, Tennessee, a small business, protests the termination of its contract, and the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-19-R-9134, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for facility investment services at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Oak Grove, and other outlying fields, in North Carolina. BryMak argues that the Navy lacked a valid basis to terminate its contract, cancel the RFP, and issue a new solicitation. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety.   Decision Matter of:  BryMak & Associates, Inc. File:  B-418491.2 Date:  June 16, 2020 John C. Dulske, Esq., Joanne Zimolzak, Esq., Bonnie Kirkland, Esq., and Ryan Sullivan, Esq., Dykema Gossett PLLC, for the protester. Howard A. Smith, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly canceled solicitation as corrective action in response to another offeror’s protest is denied where the record shows the agency reasonably determined that a restrictive term in the solicitation may have limited competition and that cancellation was appropriate corrective action.  DECISION   BryMak & Associates, Inc., of Clarksville, Tennessee, a small business, protests the termination of its contract, and the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-19-R-9134, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for facility investment services at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Oak Grove, and other outlying fields, in North Carolina.[1]  BryMak argues that the Navy lacked a valid basis to terminate its contract, cancel the RFP, and issue a new solicitation.   We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued July 8, 2019, sought proposals from service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB) to provide services for a base period and 4 option years under a fixed-price and fixed-unit-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.[2]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP amend. 3 (Final Solicitation) at 7-10.   The RFP provided that a contract would be awarded to the offeror that submitted the proposal offering the best value considering price and four non-price factors.  Id. at 268.  The first three non-price factors (management approach; recent, relevant experience of the firm; and safety) were weighted equally.  Id. at 269.  The combined weight of those three was equal to the fourth non-price factor:  past performance on recent, relevant projects.  Id.  Finally, price was equal in importance to the combined weight of the four non-price factors.  Id.  The RFP instructed offerors to provide information for evaluation under each factor.  Under the recent, relevant experience of the firm factor, the RFP requested information on from one to five relevant projects “where the offeror served as the prime contractor, that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work requirements specified in the solicitation.”  Id. at 272.  With regard to the projects, the RFP advised that “experience of proposed subcontractors will not be considered,” and that “the Offeror’s experience as a subcontractor will not be considered.”  Id.  The RFP also contained what was marked as a “NOTE,” which advised offerors as follows: Subcontractor experience may be provided for specific work elements only if that subcontractor is proposed to perform work on this requirement.  However, the offeror must demonstrate experience as prime contractor on at least one relevant project.  Subcontractor experience will not be substituted for prime contractor experience in any case.  Projects submitted for consideration shall be provided on Attachment D, Recent/Relevant Experience Form with details that include percentages of work completed for both prime and proposed subcontractors.   RFP amend. 4 at 20-21.  After receiving and evaluating proposals, the Navy selected BryMak’s proposal for award.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2.  Another offeror, Government Contracting Resources, Inc., filed a protest with our Office on February 18, 2020, arguing that the award was improper because both its and BryMak’s proposals had been misevaluated.  Id.  The firm alleged that BryMak lacked prime contractor experience that should have resulted in an unacceptable rating under the recent, relevant experience factor, which would have precluded BryMak from receiving a favorable technical rating overall.