A.E.S. UXO, LLC (W911SA-21-Q-3008)

B-419150 Dec 07, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AES UXO, LLC, of New Orleans, Louisiana, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911SA21Q3008, issued by the Department of the Army for unexploded ordnance clearance services at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. AES argues that the solicitation's evaluation criteria relating to the evaluation of relevant experience and past performance are unduly restrictive of competition. We sustain the protest in part, and deny it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  AES UXO, LLC File:  B-419150 Date:  December 7, 2020 Terrence R. Young, and James Ratcliff, for the protester. Susan Kim, Esq., Captain Ethan Chae, and Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging solicitation’s relevant experience and past performance evaluation criteria is sustained where record shows that solicitation as written requires such experience and past performance to have been gained by firms while performing only as prime contractors or as a joint venture, and not while performing as subcontractors.  In contrast, the agency’s stated intent--to require the prime contractors responding to this solicitation to have relevant experience and past performance themselves--is not accurately captured by solicitation language. DECISION   AES UXO, LLC, of New Orleans, Louisiana, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911SA21Q3008, issued by the Department of the Army for unexploded ordnance clearance services at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin.  AES argues that the solicitation’s evaluation criteria relating to the evaluation of relevant experience and past performance are unduly restrictive of competition. We sustain the protest in part, and deny it in part.  BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued as a service-disabled veteran-owned small-business (SDVOSB) set-aside, contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity type contract for a base year and four 1-year options to provide unexploded ordnance clearance services at Fort McCoy.  Firms were advised that the agency would evaluate quotations considering three equally weighted factors, price, technical, and past performance.  Agency Report (AR) exhs. 3, 18, RFP at 13, RFP amend. No. 0002, Offeror Questions and Answers, at 2-3.  The technical factor includes five equally weighted subfactors, only one of which--relevant experience‑‑is germane to the protest. AES challenges the solicitation’s evaluation scheme, and in particular, the contemplated evaluation of quotations in the areas of relevant experience and past performance.  With respect to relevant experience, the RFQ’s instructions[1] provide as follows:  “The offeror shall submit two (2) examples of recent, relevant projects that the offeror completed and served as the prime contractor or in [ ] Joint Ventures (JV) for similar requirements to this project.”  AR, exh. 19, RFQ, amend. No. 0003, at 5.  Elsewhere, the agency made clear its position that it intends to limit the evaluation of relevant experience to those instances where the entity submitting the quotation had performed as either a prime contractor or as a member of a joint venture.  AR, exhs. 18, 19, RFQ amend. No 0002 at 7; RFQ amend. No. 0003 at 12, Questions and Answers, Question No. 24: Question: On Page 12 of the solicitation, under Element 5- Relevant Experience, it states that [] “The offeror shall submit two (2) examples of recent, relevant projects that the offeror completed and served as the prime contractor, in [] Joint Ventures (JV) for similar requirements to this project”.  Please clarify if the offeror is required show two relevant projects as a prime contractor, or only if they were part of a JV. Answer:  The offeror shall submit two (2) examples of recent, relevant projects that the offeror completed and served as the prime contractor, OR in [] Joint Ventures (JV) for similar requirements to this project. Amendment 2 will add the word “or” into the statement. The offeror shall submit two (2) examples regardless if they are serving as the prime or a JV. In a similar vein, the RFQ confines the evaluation of past performance examples to those where the firm submitting the quotation previously performed as the prime contractor or as a member of a joint venture.[2]  As with the technical evaluation factor, the RFQ’s evaluation factors did not elaborate on the scope of past performance examples that would be considered by the agency.  Nonetheless, the agency made clear that it would confine its evaluation of past performance to instances where the firm submitting the quotation had performed as a prime contractor or member of a joint venture.  The questions and answers provided by the agency, AR, exhs.