ANG Quality Testing, Ltd. (SPE603-19-R-0511)

B-418861,B-418861.2 Sep 29, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ANG Quality Testing, Ltd., of Kabul, Afghanistan, protests the award of a contract to COGECO Private Limited, of Lahore, Pakistan, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE603-19-R-0511, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the procurement of quality assurance and surveillance services, as well as supply chain visibility services, related to fuel and fuel products in Afghanistan. ANG primarily argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable. 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:  ANG Quality Testing, Ltd. File:  B-418861; B-418861.2 Date:  September 29, 2020 Joel Hamner, Esq., Whitcomb Selinsky, P.C., for the protester. Jerry Kim, Esq., and Todd Muse, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation terms. DECISION   ANG Quality Testing, Ltd., of Kabul, Afghanistan, protests the award of a contract to COGECO Private Limited, of Lahore, Pakistan, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE603-19-R-0511, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the procurement of quality assurance and surveillance services, as well as supply chain visibility services, related to fuel and fuel products in Afghanistan.  ANG primarily argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 20, 2019, requested the performance of such services as inspection, witnessing and verification services of fuel products; transportation of fuel products; and other services related to fuel and fuel products in Afghanistan.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 15.  The RFP contemplated the award of a requirements contract with fixed-priced task orders to be performed over a 3-year base period, a 2-year option period, and a 6-month extension period.  AR, Tab 15, amend. 0006 at 4.  The solicitation initially identified January 1, 2020, as the start date of performance but, after submission of initial proposals, the start date was revised to July 1, 2020.  Id. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer, considering three evaluation factors:  technical/management, past performance, and price.  RFP at 164-165.  This protest concerns just one of the five subfactors under the technical/management factor, the qualified personnel subfactor.  In connection with this subfactor, the RFP provided, among other things, that, “[t[he proposal must include a Training Plan that ensures personnel are qualified and certified to comply with the requirements in [performance work statement (PWS)] C-2.5.”[1]  Id. at 167.  Under each technical/management subfactor, the agency was to evaluate proposals as acceptable or unacceptable; if a proposal was evaluated as unacceptable under any subfactor, it would be rated unacceptable overall for the technical/management factor and ineligible for award.[2]  Id. The agency received proposals from nine firms by the October 15 closing date, and included six in the competitive range, including those from ANG and COGECO.  Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum (COS/MOL) at 4.  The agency evaluated ANG’s technical proposal as unacceptable under the qualified personnel subfactor.  AR, Tab 9, Technical Evaluation Report of ANG Initial Proposal at 1.  The agency found that ANG’s proposal had a deficiency described as: [F]ailed to provide procedures that would ensure all contractor personnel are experienced, qualified, and certified to accomplish all required tasks in the PWS[;] it failed to identify or describe in detail length frequencies for maintaining personnel competence and knowledge of sampling and testing requirements/standards in the PWS, and the method of documentation and certification for the personnel.  [The proposal also] failed to provide an acceptable Training Plan that ensures personnel are qualified and certified to comply with the requirements in PWS C-2.5. Id.