Leumas Residential, LLC (N40080-19-R-2506)

B-418635 Jul 14, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Leumas Residential, LLC, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to DSA, LLC, of Gadsden, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40080-19-R-2506, issued by the Department of the Navy, for grounds maintenance services at various naval facilities. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable. We sustain 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:  Leumas Residential, LLC File:  B-418635 Date:  July 14, 2020 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Armani Vadiee, Esq., and Zachary D. Prince, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Timothy F. Valley, Esq., Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., and Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for DSA, LLC, the intervenor. Kenneth Jerome Rich, Sr., Esq., and Kyle Krombach, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is sustained where the evaluation was unreasonable and inadequately documented. DECISION   Leumas Residential, LLC, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to DSA, LLC, of Gadsden, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40080-19-R-2506, issued by the Department of the Navy, for grounds maintenance services at various naval facilities.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on October 17, 2019, as a competitive 8(a) set-aside,[1] under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, for grounds maintenance services for various Navy facilities in Virginia and Maryland.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 11.[2]  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a one-year base period and four 1‑year options periods.  Id.  Award was to be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis considering the following three non-price factors and price:  technical approach/management; safety; and past performance.[3]  Id. at 78.  Price would be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.  Id.  The agency received three proposals, including those from Leumas and DSA, which were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) as follows:[4]    Leumas DSA Overall Technical Rating Unacceptable Acceptable Technical Approach/Management Unacceptable Acceptable Safety Unacceptable Acceptable Past Performance Acceptable Acceptable Price $12,969,032 $15,221,962   AR, Tab 7, SSEB Report at 3; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 12. The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA) for this procurement, reviewed and concurred with the SSEB’s findings.  AR, Tab 9, Source Selection Decision Document at 1.  As a result, the SSA found that DSA’s lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal, with a price considered fair and reasonable, represented the best value to the government and selected it for award.  Id. at 1-2. Leumas was notified of DSA’s selection on March 19, 2020.  After requesting and receiving a debriefing, Leumas filed this timely protest. DISCUSSION Leumas challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable.  Specifically, Leumas challenges the agency’s assessment of significant weaknesses and deficiencies under the technical approach/management factor and the safety factor, which resulted in the agency’s finding that Leumas was unacceptable under both factors.  Since we found that none of the arguments made by the Navy reasonably support its conclusion that this proposal was unacceptable, we sustain the protest.  Our conclusions about each of the Navy’s arguments are set forth below. While we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency, we will sustain a protest where the agency’s conclusions are inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, undocumented, or not reasonably based.  NavQSys, LLC, B-417028.3, Mar. 27, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 130 at 3.  Where an agency fails to document or retain evaluation materials, it bears the risk that there may not be adequate supporting rationale in the record for us to conclude that the agency had a reasonable basis for its evaluation conclusions.  Navistar Def., LLC, BAE Sys., Tactical Vehicle Sys. LP, B-401865 et al., Dec.