Patronus Systems, Inc. (N69450-19-R-1830)

B-418784,B-418784.2 Sep 03, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Patronus Systems, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Melbourne, Florida, protests the award of a contract to W&W Protection, LLC (WWP), an SDVOSB of Sunrise, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N69450-19-R-1830, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command for guard services. The protester argues that the agency failed to conduct a price realism analysis, unreasonably concluded that the awardee's final proposal resolved one of the deficiencies identified in its initial proposal, and unreasonably ignored inconsistencies between the labor hours proposed in the awardee's technical and price proposals. 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:  Patronus Systems, Inc. File:  B-418784; B-418784.2 Date:  September 3, 2020 Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Scott F. Lane, Esq., and Jayna M. Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Jeffrey Weinstein, Esq., The Weinsten Law Group PLLC, for W&W Protection, LLC, the intervenor. Susan E. Sharp, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., Heather Self, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest arguing the agency failed to conduct a price realism analysis is denied because the solicitation did not obligate the agency to perform a price realism evaluation. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical proposal is sustained because the agency unreasonably concluded that the awardee’s proposal revisions resolved one of the deficiencies identified in its initial proposal. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of inconsistencies between the labor hours proposed in the awardee’s technical and price proposals is sustained because the evaluation is unreasonable and inadequately documented. DECISION   Patronus Systems, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Melbourne, Florida, protests the award of a contract to W&W Protection, LLC (WWP), an SDVOSB of Sunrise, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N69450-19-R-1830, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command for guard services.  The protester argues that the agency failed to conduct a price realism analysis, unreasonably concluded that the awardee’s final proposal resolved one of the deficiencies identified in its initial proposal, and unreasonably ignored inconsistencies between the labor hours proposed in the awardee’s technical and price proposals. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On July 11, 2019, the agency issued the solicitation as an SDVOSB set-aside utilizing the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.  Agency Report (AR), exh. B, RFP at 1, 6.  The solicitation sought proposals for the provision of guard services at the agency’s Fleet Logistics Center located at the Jacksonville Heckscher Fuel Terminal in Jacksonville, Florida, and at the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Naval Air Station, also located in Jacksonville, Florida.  Id. at 6.  The solicitation contemplated award of a single fixed-price contract with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  Id.  Each 1-year performance period consisted of two contract line items numbers (CLINs)--one definite-quantity CLIN for the required recurring guard services and one indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery CLIN for other non-recurring work requirements.  Id. at 6-7. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror.  RFP at 54.  The solicitation established four technical evaluation factors:  (1) corporate experience; (2) management and technical approach; (3) safety; and (4) past performance.  Id.  The solicitation further provided that a proposal assessed as unacceptable under any individual technical evaluation factor would be considered technically unacceptable overall.  Id.  With respect to the evaluation of price, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate offerors’ prices for reasonableness and balance.  Id. at 55.  The solicitation further provided that the agency’s price evaluation may consider whether prices are realistic in relation to the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with other portions of the proposal.  A price that is found either unreasonably high or unrealistically low in relation to the proposed work may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the overall proposal not being considered for award. Id.