Raven Operations, LLC (FA487720R0051)

B-419372 Jan 25, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raven Operations, LLC, of Scottsdale, Arizona, protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to AAJ Construction, Inc., of West Leechburg, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA487720R0051 for grounds maintenance services. Raven primarily challenges the evaluation of the awardee's proposal under the experience factor. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Raven Operations, LLC File:  B-419372 Date:  January 25, 2021 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Daniel H. Ramish, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., and Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for AAJ Construction, Inc., the intervenor. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz and Major Alissa J. K. Schrider, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal under the experience factor is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Raven Operations, LLC, of Scottsdale, Arizona, protests the Department of the Air Force’s award of a contract to AAJ Construction, Inc., of West Leechburg, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA487720R0051 for grounds maintenance services.  Raven primarily challenges the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the experience factor. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 4, 2020, the agency issued the RFP as a combined synopsis/solicitation pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6 (Acquisition of Commercial Items) and part 13 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Posting, Sept. 4, 2020; AR, Tab 10, Conformed RFP after Amendment 5 (RFP), Sept. 28, 2020.[1]  The RFP seeks a contractor to provide grounds maintenance services for Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, to include all personnel, equipment, tools, supervision, and other necessary items and services.  RFP at 7. The RFP contemplates the award of a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, with a guaranteed minimum amount of $450,000 and a maximum amount of $5 million.  RFP at 3.  The RFP provides for award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, considering price and three non-price factors.  Among these factors, only the experience factor is relevant here, for which the RFP provides the following: Proof contractor has experience with large-scale (1000+ acre) regular full grounds maintenance services must be verifiable by government personnel.  Contractors are encouraged to provide contact information for previous customers in order to meet this requirement.  (Acceptable/Unacceptable). Id. at 67. On or before September 28, the amended closing date for proposals, the agency received proposals from six offerors, including Raven and AAJ Construction.  The agency first evaluated the proposed prices, and determined that AAJ Construction’s total evaluated price of $795,537 was the lowest.  The agency proceeded to evaluate AAJ Construction’s proposal under the non-price factors and rated it acceptable.  AR, Tab 13, Abstract of Proposals, Oct. 9, 2020, at 1-4. The agency selected AAJ Construction for award and posted the notice of award on October 19.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION Raven challenges the agency’s evaluation of AAJ Construction’s proposal under the experience factor, claiming that “[t]here is no evidence that AAJ [Construction] has any experience meeting the RFP 1,000-acre requirement.”  Protest at 6. In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals, nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion.  Rather, we will review the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and with applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  Computer World Servs. Corp., B-410513, B‑410513.2, Dec. 31, 2014, 2015 CPD ¶ 21 at 6.  A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without more, is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  Vertex Aerospace, LLC, B‑417065, B-417065.2, Feb.